JUDGMENT 1. - Learned Single Judge vide judgment dated November 21, 1994 directed the appellant United India Insurance Company (for short 'UIIC') to consider the case of respondent Radhey Shyam Gupta (for short 'RSG') at par with other Administrative Officers and allow him the benefit of one additional increment in order to step up his pay equal to that of his juniors w.e.f. October 15, 1985 with all consequential benefits. Against this judgment of learned Single Judge that the action for filing the instant special appeal has been resorted to by UIIC. 2. Contextual facts depict that RSG came to be appointed as the Assistant Typist on August 22, 1979 in the office of UIIC. Four persons named by RSG in para 4 of the writ petition, although happened to be junior to RSG, all of them including RSG were given the same pay scale. Subsequently UIIC floated rationalisation scheme in 1985 amending the earlier scheme of 1974, bracketing/bunching the employees in two or more consecutive stages together and fixing a revised pay for them. The scheme provided for restricting the pay scales. For the purpose of implementation of the rationalisation scheme all the employees were asked either to opt for refixation from April 1, 1983 or from October 15, 1985. Consequence/ advantages/benefits of opting for refixation with effect from April 1, 1983 and from October 15, 1985 were made clear and explained. RSG made his option and opted for implementation of the scheme with effect from April 1, 1983. However looking to the financial loss in comparison to his juniors, RSG made grievance by making representation on January 29, 1987 requesting to remove anomaly in the pay. After rejection of representation, RSG filed writ petition that was allowed as indicated above. 3. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions advanced before us. 4. In our humble opinion the view expressed in the impugned judgment is highly fallacious. The reasons are : (i) Normal grade increment of RSG accrued in the month of August every year. He had to wait for ten months whereas normal grade increments of his juniors accrued in December and June and they got their next increment within 2nd and 8th months respectively. RSG, therefore, did not get lesser pay scale. The reasons are : (i) Normal grade increment of RSG accrued in the month of August every year. He had to wait for ten months whereas normal grade increments of his juniors accrued in December and June and they got their next increment within 2nd and 8th months respectively. RSG, therefore, did not get lesser pay scale. (ii) Circular dated February 4, 1988 on which reliance was placed by learned single Judge was applicable only to Administrative Officers and not to RSG who came under supervisory or clerical staff. The principle of stepping up of the pay becomes applicable when the junior officer and senior officer belong to the same category and the post from which they have been promoted and in the promoted cadre the junior officer on being promoted later than the senior officer gets a higher pay. (iii) It was because of the option exercised by RSG that he was getting lesser pay scale for a few months in a year. (iv) As per doctrine of acquiescence once the order accepted by other party, acted upon and benefits driven out of it is not open for the party to challenge the same. In the instant case RSG gave his option with his eyes open and after making calculation considering the gain and losses and examining the pros and cons of both the dates of refixation. Once he had opted for refixation with effect from April 1, 1983 and same was acted upon it was not open for him, after taking benefits for a period of four years, to raise dispute in 1989. Law does not permit a person to both approbate and reprobate. (v) Restructuring the pay scales by bracketing the consecutive grades together is a policy decision and since the policy itself was not arbitrary and irrational, no interference was called for. Learned Single Judge could not have examined and demerits of the policy since the writ petition was not, filed by RSG for quashing the rationalisation scheme of 1985 and prayer was made only to remove the anomaly in salaries. 5. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the special appeal stands allowed and the impugned order dated November 21, 1994 passed by learned Single Judge stands set aside.Appeal allowed. *******