Judgment Ashok Parihar, J.-Petitioner was initially appointed as Development Officer vide order dated 16.05.1965, however, was re-designated as Branch Manager vide order dated 21.05.1965. Petitioner was continued to work as Branch Manager since then. Subsequently, the Committee appointed by the Board of Directors of General Insurance Corporation of India declared the petitioner as member of the Development Staff of the company and not been covered by the term officer as defined in Section 3(1) of General Insurance (Rationalisation of Pay Scales and other Conditions of Service of Officers) Scheme, 1975 (for short the Scheme of 1975). The petitioner was also informed accordingly in regard to the decision of the Committee vide communication dated 30.09.1975. 2.Petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 211.1975. Subsequently, services of the petitioner came to be dismissed on the ground of conviction in a criminal case by the Sessions Court vide order dated 23.03.1979. On an appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of conviction, the same was allowed by this Court and the petitioner was acquitted vide order dated 01.02.1990. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the petitioner also came to be allowed by this Court vide order dated 12.07.1990, by which, the order of dismissal was also set aside and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated with all consequential benefits. Petitioner was allowed to join his duties and has also retired from service in the year 1993. In the meanwhile, there appears to be some dispute in regard to payment of salary and other benefits for the intervening period and some directions have also been issued by this Court. Petitioner has made the following prayers in the present writ petition, filed in August, 1991:-“(a) The respondents may be directed to produce the entire relevant record of the case before this Honble Court. (b) Theimpugned orders dated 30.09.1975 and 18.06.1991 may kindly be declared illegal, invalid, ultra vires, unconstitutional, null and void ab initio and may be quashed and set aside. (c) Therespondents may be directed to treat the petitioner as an Officer throughout and further to consider the petitioner for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer, Asstt. Manager and so on w.e.f. such date when persons similarly situated to him as mentioned in the writ petition were so promoted and in case the petitioner is found suitable to grant him similar promotions with retrospective effect alongwith all consequential benefits. Manager and so on w.e.f. such date when persons similarly situated to him as mentioned in the writ petition were so promoted and in case the petitioner is found suitable to grant him similar promotions with retrospective effect alongwith all consequential benefits. (d) Clause 3(1) of the Scheme of 1975 in so far as it confer excessive, unguided, uncontrolled, unfettered and unreasonable powers upon the Committee for declaring the person as a member of the development staff may kindly be declared unconstitutional and may be quashed and set aside. (d)(1) The impugned order dated 24.02.1992 and 26.09.1992 may kindly be declared illegal, invalid, ultra vires and unconstitutional and may be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to consider the petitioners case and accord promotion to the petitioner at higher posts at par with the persons similarly situated or junior to the petitioner and to promote the petitioner as Asstt. Administrative Officer with effect from the year 1975 when the persons much junior to him were so promoted with all consequential benefits including the benefits of promotions to higher posts with effect from the date persons similarly situated were so promoted. (d)(2) The respondents may be directed to grant and release all normal perquisites and benefits of service to the petitioner i.e. Annual grade increment, medical benefit scheme, telephone allowances, entertainment allowance, conveyance allowances, medical reimbursement etc. with effect from his reinstatement. (d)(3) The respondents may be directed to revise the fixation of the petitioners pay protecting the basic salary of the petitioner so drawn in the year 1975 with all consequential benefits. (e) Any other appropriate writ order or direction which may be considered just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 3.In reply to the writ petition it has categorically been submitted that right from the beginning the petitioner has been treated as an officer of development staff . Even as per Rationalisation Scheme of 1975, the Committee, so constituted, had declared the petitioner as member of the development staff and held that he is not covered by the term officer as per the scheme. The order had been communicated to the petitioner way back in the year 1975 itself . Even as per Rationalisation Scheme of 1975, the Committee, so constituted, had declared the petitioner as member of the development staff and held that he is not covered by the term officer as per the scheme. The order had been communicated to the petitioner way back in the year 1975 itself . Petitioner, now, in the present writ petition filed after more than 15 years, cannot be allowed to challenge the provisions of the Scheme of 1975 itself . Since, the petitioner has never been treated as an officer on the administrative side even as per the Committee appointed under the Scheme of 1975 the prayers in regard to promotion on the administrative side cannot be accepted. 4.So far as alternative prayer for promotion to the higher post on the development side is concerned, the same had duly been considered by the respondents after reinstatement of the petitioner strictly as per directions issued by this Court. In absence of the required premium during the relevant period, as per the norms fixed for such promotion, since the representation filed by the petitioner had already been decided by the concerning authorities by a detailed speaking order as per directions of this Court, the prayer so made also cannot be accepted. 5.Having considered entire facts and circumstances, in my opinion, the reliefs, as sought in the present writ petition, cannot be granted. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having no merit.