Judgment :- (P.K. Misra, J.) These writ petitions have been filed against the common order of dismissal dated 12. 1999, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in the Original Applications and to direct the Union of India to continue the petitioners as Pharmacists in charge of Stores (Store-keeper). 2. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are as follows:- 2.1 The petitioners were appointed as Store-keepers under the Union of India in connection with Central Government Health Scheme (CGHS). At that time, the post of Store-Keeper formed a separate cadre and the post of Pharmacist formed a different cadre. The qualification for the post of Store-keeper is as follows:- i) B. Pharm or B.Sc., with one year experience of doing store accounting or pharmacy work ii) D. Pharm, with 5 years experience can be considered if candidates with qualifications at (i) above are not available. 2.2 It is also stated that for the post of Pharmacist, qualification required was only Diploma in Pharmacy. However, inspite of the fact that Store-keepers were apparently required to possess higher qualification, the scale of pay for Pharmacists was fixed at Rs.1350 - 2200, whereas the scale of pay of the Store-keeper was initially fixed at Rs.1200 - 2040. On the basis of number of representations, the matter was considered by the anomalies Committee, which recommended that the Store-keeper may be kept in the scale of Rs.1400-2300. However, the Government eventually fixed the scale of pay of the Store-keeper at Rs.1350-2200 on par with the Pharmacists by an order dated 20.6.1988. 2.3 Even before the issuance of such order, the Government by its earlier order dated 6. 1988 had decided to redesignate the post of Store-keeper as Pharmacist so that the Store-keeper would be allowed to draw the same scale as Pharmacist. Thus, while redesignating the post and merging two services, no guidelines had been issued for determining the seniority. 2.4 On 35. 1989, a seniority list was prepared, wherein the former Store-keepers were placed in the same seniority list along with the Pharmacists by counting their seniority from their inception. In other words, the Store-keepers were not given any higher seniority although their educational qualification was required to be higher. It was contended that keeping in view the educational qualification and the nature of job, the Store-keepers should have been shown as seniors. Accordingly, number of representations were made. In other words, the Store-keepers were not given any higher seniority although their educational qualification was required to be higher. It was contended that keeping in view the educational qualification and the nature of job, the Store-keepers should have been shown as seniors. Accordingly, number of representations were made. The petitioner in WP.No.7201 of 1999 had made such representation on 210. 1991 and a reply was received from the Deputy Director on 1. 1992 stating that the matter was referred to the Director, CGHS, and a decision would be taken. 2.5 Subsequently, by proceedings dated 17. 1995, it was decided to create a promotional avenue for Pharmacists by upgrading 25% of the posts of Pharmacists as Senior Pharmacists in the scale of Rs.1600 -2660 and such promotion would be made on the basis of seniority-cum-fitness. On 8. 1995, the petitioners had made representation regarding question of seniority. However, by order dated 1. 1996, 15 persons were promoted as Senior Pharmacists by considering the seniority on the basis of the date of appointment either as a Pharmacist or Store-keeper. 2.6 At that stage, the respondents decided to post four persons in charge of the stores and accordingly the petitioners were directed to handover charge to them. The petitioners filed O.A.No.226, 422, 440 and 1227 of 1996 before the Central Administrative Tribunal for quashing such order dated 12. 1996 and to direct the respondents to continue the petitioners as Store-keeper in charge of stores. By virtue of the order of status quo, the petitioners continued to function as Pharmacists in charge of the stores. Thereafter, the petitioner in W.P.No.7201 of 1999 filed O.A.No.58 of 1997 challenging the seniority list dated 25. 1989. All the O.As were taken up together and the Original Applications were dismissed by an order dated 12. 1999 mainly on the ground of delay in approaching the Tribunal. Such decision of the Tribunal is in question in the present writ petitions. 3. The main contention in the writ petitions is to the effect that since the Store-keepers were required to possess higher educational qualification, they should have been placed as senior en bloc over the Pharmacists. In the alternative it is submitted that at any rate weightage of five years should have been given for the purpose of seniority. 4. 3. The main contention in the writ petitions is to the effect that since the Store-keepers were required to possess higher educational qualification, they should have been placed as senior en bloc over the Pharmacists. In the alternative it is submitted that at any rate weightage of five years should have been given for the purpose of seniority. 4. Having heard the learned counsels for both the parties and gone through the materials on record, we are unable to accept the submission made on behalf of the petitioners for several reasons. 5. Firstly, as apparent, the seniority list had been prepared as way back in May, 1989. Law is well settled that in the matters relating to seniority, an aggrieved party is expected to come to the Court as expeditiously as possible without avoidable delay and the matters which are remained settled for a long period should not be allowed to unsettle after a long lapse of time. 5.1 In the present case, the petitioners approached the Tribunal for the first time by filing Original Applications in 1996 or 1997, after about 7 to 8 years. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that representations have been made and they have been waiting for the reply from the Government. In such matters, merely by making a representation, an aggrieved employee cannot wait quietly for a long period. If no reply was received within a reasonable period, say six months or one year, obviously the person has to approach the Court to ventilate his grievance. 2. The Supreme Court, further, in the judgment relating to the State of Tamil Nadu v. Seschalam (2007 AIR SCW 7750) held that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. Speaking for the Bench, S.B. Sinha, J. in paragraph 11 had observed as follows:- “11. Some of the respondents might have filed representations but filing of representations alone would not save the period of limitation. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and / or laches on the part of a Government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Delay or laches is a relevant factor for a court of law to determine the question as to whether the claim made by an applicant deserves consideration. Delay and / or laches on the part of a Government servant may deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India would not, in a situation of that nature, be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant.” 6. Apart from the above, when two separate cadres were merged together, the question as to how their seniority should be counted is a matter of policy decision of the Government. Such merger had taken place long back and it appears that no grievance had been made. It may be true that the educational qualification required for a Storekeeper was somewhat higher as compared to that of a Pharmacist. This again is a matter for the Government to consider and the courts of law are not expected to delve into such matters, particularly after a long lapse of time. 7. Apart from the above two hurdles, there is still a greater hurdle for the petitioners to succeed. Even though the petitioners are claiming seniority over other Pharmacists, except in W.P.No.7201 of 1999, such persons, who are likely to be affected, are not impleaded as parties. In their absence in some of the writ petitions, no effective relief can be granted. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any merit in these writ petitions, which are accordingly dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.