ORDER 1. This batch of matters involve a common question of law as to whether petitioners are Government employees and further whether they are entitled to seniority from the date of their initial appointments with promotions and pay scale of the State Government with effect from the same date. 2. The indisputable facts, in brief, are that on 24-5-1982 (Annexure-P/3 to writ petition No.6092/2006) an advertisement was published in Nav Bharat, Raipur, on behalf of the Directorate, Fisheries Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, inviting applications for the purpose of training of Fisheries Extension Workers/Fisheries Inspectors. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the petitioners along with others made application. They were sent on training for a period of 10 months. In the course of training the petitioners entered into an agreement with the Governor of Madhya Pradesh acting through the Director of Fisheries Services of Madhya Pradesh. After completion of training a list of successful candidates was published on 7-10-1983 & 5-8-1984 (Annexures-P/5 & P/6 to writ petition No.6092/2006), by the Directorate, Fisheries Department, Government of Madhya Pradesh. Some of the candidates were appointed in the Government Department as Fisheries Inspectors (for short "FIs"). The names of the petitioners were sent to the Fish Farmers Development Agencies (for short "the FFDAs") for appointment on the post of Fisheries Extension Workers (for short "FEW") vide orders dated 25-10-1983, 12-6-1984 & 5-7-1984 (Annexures-P/8, P/9 & P/I 0 to writ petition No.6092/2006). It was stated therein that the FFDAs may pass appointment orders and inform accordingly to the Directorate, Fisheries. It was mentioned in the order that their seniority would be maintained as per the list of the names shown in the order itself. The petitioners were accordingly appointed by the Chief Executive Officer/Chairman of FFDAs vide order dated 20-6-1984 and other orders. A copy of one of the appointment orders was annexed in writ petitionNo.l7l 7/2005 as Annexure-P/12. Thereafter, the petitioners continued to work on the same post. 3. The petitioners were accordingly appointed by the Chief Executive Officer/Chairman of FFDAs vide order dated 20-6-1984 and other orders. A copy of one of the appointment orders was annexed in writ petitionNo.l7l 7/2005 as Annexure-P/12. Thereafter, the petitioners continued to work on the same post. 3. The State Government took a decision on 11-5-2006 (Annexure-P/l to writ petition No.6092/2006), on the basis of proposal dated 22-3-2005, to absorb the services of the petitioners working in FFDAs in the Government department with a condition that the pay scale of the employees would be determined on the basis of the date of appointment, but the same would be paid from the date of absorption, the employees would not be entitled to arrears of salary, pensionary benefits would be computed from the date of appointment and their seniority would be determined treating the absorbed employees as Government employees from the date of absorption under the provisions of Chhattisgarh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services ) Rules, 1961 (for short "the Rules, 1961"). Thereafter, their seniority was determined and a list was published on 16-5-2006 (Annexure-P/2 to writ petition No. 1895/2007). Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed this batch of petitions. 4. Writ Petition (S) No.224/2005 : This petition is filed by the Fisheries Extension Officers of FFDAs namely, Anil Kumar Tiwari, Sanjay Lanjewar, N.D. Tripathi, Y.K. Shukla, Koushlendra Mishra, U.S. Tomar, D.P. Bhargava, G.P. Agrawal, V.D. Patel, Devendra Shrivastava & P.K. Vyas before the Madhya Pradesh State Administrative Tribunal (for short "SAT"), Principal Bench at Jabalpur, being O.A.No.222/1990, seeking a direction to regularize the services of the petitioners in the cadre of Assistant Fisheries Officers in the Fisheries Department of the State Government with due seniority and pay scale of the Fisheries Extension Officers and Assistant Fisheries Officers working in the Government. This petition was transferred to the High Court on dissolution of the SAT, and numbered as above. 5. Writ Petition (S) No.3/2006: This petition is filed by the Fisheries Extension Workers of FFDAs namely, Pooran Singh Patel, Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, Anil Kumar Hazari, K.L. Jaiswal, R.G. Bohre, H.S. Kar, S.S. Parihar & G.K. Upadhyay before the SAT, Principal Bench at Jabalpur, being O.A.No. 794/1993, seeking the same relief as stated above. 5. Writ Petition (S) No.3/2006: This petition is filed by the Fisheries Extension Workers of FFDAs namely, Pooran Singh Patel, Rajendra Kumar Shrivastava, Anil Kumar Hazari, K.L. Jaiswal, R.G. Bohre, H.S. Kar, S.S. Parihar & G.K. Upadhyay before the SAT, Principal Bench at Jabalpur, being O.A.No. 794/1993, seeking the same relief as stated above. In addition, they sought a direction to the respondents to prepare a fresh gradation list and further the respondents may be restrained from promoting anyone on the basis of impugned gradation list. This petition was transferred to the High Court on dissolution of the SAT, and numbered as above. 6. Writ Petition (S) No.73912005 : This petition is filed by the Fisheries Extension Worker of FFDAs namely, Vivek Vedhya before the SAT, Principal Bench at Jabalpur, being O.A.No.8481l993, seeking the same relief as stated above. This petition was transferred to the High Court on dissolution of the SAT, and numbered as above. 7. Writ Petition (S) No.80912005 : This petition is filed by the Fisheries Extension Workers of FFDAs namely, B.R. Meshram, A.K. Kaneria, Saleem Ahmed Khan, G.P. Deshmukh, Gulab Chandra Vind, Preet Bahadur Sharma, Shrikant Dewangan, Chandra Prakash Sharma & Negam Singh Bhadoria before the SAT, Principal Bench at Babalpur, being OANo.2763/1993, seeking the same relief as stated above. This petition was transferred to the High Court on dissolution of the SAT, and numbered as above. 8. Writ Petition (S) No.1762/2005 : This petition is filed by the Fisheries Extension Officer of FFDAs namely, Kaushiendra Mishra before the SAT, Principal Bench at Jabalpur, being O.A.No.3372/1998, seeking a direction against the respondents to appoint the petitioner and grant seniority as per the comparative chart published after the completion of training. This petition was transferred to the High Court on dissolution of the SAT, and numbered as above. 9. Writ Petition (S) No.207512005 : This petition is filed by the Fisheries Inspector of FFDAs namely, Deepak Kumar Shrivastava & Suresh Babu Pachauri before the SAT, Principal Bench at Jabalpur, being OANo.482712000, seeking a direction against the respondents to treat the petitioners as Fisheries Inspectors from the date of their initial appointment and giving them all service benefits including seniority, pay, etc. This petition was transferred to the High Court on dissolution of the SAT, and numbered as above. 10. This petition was transferred to the High Court on dissolution of the SAT, and numbered as above. 10. Writ Petition No.1717/2005 : This petition is filed by the Fisheries Extension Workers & Fisheries Inspectors of FFDAs namely, Hari Babu Ahirwar Arvind Sirotiya, Bramha Prakash Bajpai, R.N. Mishra, Nain Shah, Z.U. Khan & B. U. Kazi, before this Court seeking a writ/direction to the respondents to treat the petitioners as Government servants from the initial date of appointment with FFDAs after successful completion of the training. Further a direction to grant the benefit of pay scale of FIs to the petitioners as revised from time to time from the date of initial appointment and Kramonnati consequent thereupon. The petitioners also sought a writ to quash the orders dated 14-6-2000 (Annexure-P/26) and (Annexure-P/27) whereby some of the employees of FFDAs were taken on deputation in the Government department with certain terms and conditions and seniority from the date of initial appointment under the FFDAs with consequential benefits be granted to the petitioners. 11. Writ Petition (S) No.6092/2006 : This petition is filed by the Fisheries Inspectors namely, Pooran Singh Patel, V.P. Goswami, G.K. Upadhyaya, Ram Gopal Bohre, K.L. Jaiswal, Virendra Singh Jadon, Ulfati Pawan & Anil Kumar Hazan; before this Court seeking a writ to quash some parts of the orders dated 11-5-2006 (Annexure-P/1) and 16-5-2006 (Annexure-P/2) to the extent of grant of seniority from the date of absorption and grant of financial benefits including pay scale from the date of absorption. 12. Writ Petition (S) No.6093/2006 : This petition is filed by the Assistant Fisheries Officers namely, Kaushlendra Mishra & Ganesh Prasad Agrawal before this Court seeking the same relief as stated in WP.(S) No.6092/2006. 13. Writ Petition (S) No.l415/2007: This petition is filed by A.K. Kaneria before this Court seeking the same relief as stated in W.P.(S) No.6092/2006 and further sought a writ directing the respondents to decide the representation. 14. Writ Petition (S) No.1894/2007: This petition is filed by V.K. Vaidya before this Court seeking the same relief as stated in W.P.(S) No.6092/2006 and further sought a writ directing the respondents to decide the representation. 15. Writ Petition (S) No.1895/2007 : This petition is filed by B.R. Meshram before this Court seeking the same relief as stated in W.P.(S) No.6092/2006 and further sought a writ directing the respondents to decide the representation. 16. 15. Writ Petition (S) No.1895/2007 : This petition is filed by B.R. Meshram before this Court seeking the same relief as stated in W.P.(S) No.6092/2006 and further sought a writ directing the respondents to decide the representation. 16. Writ Petition (S) No.1897/2007: This petition is filed by Saleem Khan before this Court seeking the same relief as stated in W.P.(S) No.6092/2006 and further sought a Writ directing the respondents to decide the representation. 17. Writ Petition (S) No.1900/2007: This petition is filed by Shrikant Dewangan before this Court seeking the same relief as stated in W.P.(S) No.6092/2006 and further sought a writ directing the respondents to decide the representation. 18. Writ Petition (S) No.1950/2007 : This petition is filed by G.P. Deshmukh before this Court seeking the same relief as stated in W.P.(S) No.6092/2006 and further sought a writ directing the respondents to decide the representation. 19. Writ Petition (S) No.3461/2007: This petition is filed by Anil Kumar Tiwari before the Court seeking the same relief as stated in W.P.(S) No.6092/2006 and further sought a writ to quash the order dated 23-8-2006 (Annexure-PI 3) passed on the representation of the petitioner. 20. Shri U.N. Awasthy, Sr. Advocate, Shri K.A. Ansari, Sr. Advocate, Shri Vinay Pandey, Smt. Meera Ansari, Shri N .K. Vyas, Shri M.K. Sinha & Shri Satyendra Sahu, learned counsel appearing for the respective petitioners would contend that the petitioners were appointed by the State Government and they were sent on deputation to FFDAs, as there was no provision to make regular appointment in the FFDAs directly. There is a provision for sending Government employees on deputation to the FFDAs. Denial of benefits of Salary and their promotion along with other similarly situated trained candidates who were appointed as Fisheries Inspectors in the State Government is arbitrary, discriminatory and unreasonable. The Finance Department and the General Administration Department had recommended for granting service benefits and seniority to all the petitioners from the date of their initial appointments, but for the contrary opinion of the Law Department the impugned order dated 11-5-2006 (Annexure-P/1) was passed and the cases of the petitioners were completely overlooked. The petitioners have filed original applications/petitions in the year 1990, 1993, 1998 & 2000 claiming regularization of their services and treating them at par with the State Government employees and further preparing a common gradation list for the purpose of promotion. The petitioners have filed original applications/petitions in the year 1990, 1993, 1998 & 2000 claiming regularization of their services and treating them at par with the State Government employees and further preparing a common gradation list for the purpose of promotion. Learned counsel further contended that the petitioners being Government employees are entitled to all the service benefits at par with the Fisheries inspectors who had obtained training along with the petitioners and they were posted in the Government Departments and the petitioners were sent on deputation to FFDAs. 21. Shri Arun Sao, learned Govt. Advocate & Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State, per contra, would submit that the case of the petitioners is that they were selected for training by a common process, had undergone training together and were placed in a common merit list and, as such, they are entitled to regularization of services in Fisheries Department as Assistant Fishery Officer is misconceived. The petitioners were never appointed by the State Government. They have not filed all the appointment orders, but one appointment order dated 20-6-1984 passed by the Chief Executive Officer of the concerned FFDA has been filed as Annexure-P/12 in W.P.No.1717/2005. The submission of learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the appointment of the petitioners in FFDAs was by way of deputation is not correct, as in the case of deputation there should be a parent department and initial appointment should he in the parent department. The petitioner were never appointed by the state Government. Thus, there is no question of deputation. The agreement between the Governor through Director of Fisheries Department and with the petitioners during the course of training was not for the purpose of appointment in the Government Department, but to the effect that if the petitioners are appointed in the Fisheries Department under the State Government the petitioners would serve the department for a period of not less than 5 years. In the present case it was not an obligation on the part of the Fisheries Department to appoint the petitioners in the Government department. The petitioners were served by the different byelaws and rules framed for FFDAs. Claim of the petitioners for equal pay is again misplaced, as the petitioners are governed by their own bye-laws and rules. In the present case it was not an obligation on the part of the Fisheries Department to appoint the petitioners in the Government department. The petitioners were served by the different byelaws and rules framed for FFDAs. Claim of the petitioners for equal pay is again misplaced, as the petitioners are governed by their own bye-laws and rules. Petitioners cannot be granted seniority along with the officers who were appointed in the Government Department, as the service conditions of the Government officers are governed by Madhya Pradesh Non-Gazetted Class-III (Executive and Ministerial) Fisheries Service Recruitment Rules, 1971 (for short "the Rules, 1971 "). Rule 6 of the Rules, I 971 provides for method of recruitment and Rule 7 of the Rules, 1971 provides for appointment to the service. 22. It was next contended that the FFDAs are registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1973. There are certain Government servants including the Collector in the Board of Governors that does not mean that the said agency is a department of the Government and the petitioners are Government servants. The petitioners were never granted pay scale and other benefits as granted to the Government employees. Thus, the prayer to have a common gradation list may be rejected, as there cannot be a common gradation list of Government employees and the employees of FFDAs together. The reliance of learned counsel for the petitioners on certain recommendations is not sustainable in law, as the recommendations made by the Collector or any other officer is not binding on the State Government. The State Government has never accepted any recommendation and passed any order thereon. The allegation of discrimination and arbitrariness is without any basis, as equality has to be along equals not between the equals and un-equals. 23. Shri Ajay Barik, Shri Kishore Bhaduri, Shri B.P. Sharma & Shri Ajay Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India, private respondents, Government servants and the intervenors would adopt the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State. They would contend that the petitioners were borne in the cadre of Fisheries Department. The master & servant relationship between the State Government and the petitioners was never created. Some of the petitioners questioned the appointment after a period of 6 years and the remaining petitioners have questioned their appointment after a period of more than 20 years. They would contend that the petitioners were borne in the cadre of Fisheries Department. The master & servant relationship between the State Government and the petitioners was never created. Some of the petitioners questioned the appointment after a period of 6 years and the remaining petitioners have questioned their appointment after a period of more than 20 years. It is well settled that if the employees have slept over their rights for a longer period they are not entitled to any sympathy or relief on the principle of waiver and acquiescence. The petitioners, by not agitating their cause immediately, may not be granted relief to upset the entire seniority list and promotions thereon consequently' of all the Government servants i.e. the private respondents herein. Thus, the petitions accordingly deserves to be dismissed. 24. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. 25. Admittedly, the petitioners are the employees of FFDAs and they cannot be treated at par with the Government employees may be they have taken training together. The petitioners were appointed in the month of October, 1983, June, 1984 & July, 1984. They have accepted the appointment orders without any demur. First petition was filed in the year 1990 claiming regularization and seniority after a period of 6 years. The absorption order dated 11-5-2006 is in accordance with the policy decision. The salary of the petitioners was determined taking the initial date of appointment, but for the purpose of grant of financial benefits it was made clear that the petitioners were entitled to financial benefits from the date of absorption. For the purpose of grant of pension the entire period of service from the date of initial appointment would be considered and their seniority would be determined from the date of absorption under the provisions of the Rules, 1961. This is the well settled principles of law that the employees on absorption are entitled to financial benefits from the date of absorption not from the early date. This is a policy decision of the State Government. There is no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the policy decision which requires interference by this Court. 26. This is the well settled principles of law that the employees on absorption are entitled to financial benefits from the date of absorption not from the early date. This is a policy decision of the State Government. There is no arbitrariness or unreasonableness in the policy decision which requires interference by this Court. 26. The contention of the petitioners that the Finance Department as well as the General Administration Department have made recommendations to grant benefits from the date of initial appointment is irrelevant, as the discussion, opinions in the meeting by different departments is not material. The relevant is final ultimate decision which was taken by the Government as stated above. 27. All the petitioners were sent on training pursuant to the advertisement dated 24-5-1982 wherein it was not provided that after completion of the training the petitioners would be entitled to their appointment in the Government department It was provided that in the event the Government department requires services of the trained candidates they have to serve for minimum 5 years, the same reads as under: 28. An agreement to that effect was also entered between the Governor of Madhya Pradesh through the Director of Fisheries Services of Madhya Pradesh, which reads as under: "3. On completion of the training and passing the prescribed examination and tests and on demand made by the Governor the candidate shall within one year of the completion of the course and passing the prescribed examination tests; serve as Fisheries Department under the State Government for period not less than five years." 29. After completion of the training the Director, Fisheries Department, passed the order dated 25-10-1983 and more identical orders. The same reads as under: 30. All the -petitioners have not filed the appointment orders. One appointment order was found as Annexure-P/12 in W.P.No.1717/2005, which was signed by the Chief Executive Officer of the FFDA, Bilapsur. It is informed, at the bar that the similar orders were passed by all the FFDAs. The pay scale was already stated in the order itself. In the case of Bilaspur, the pay scale was 575-15-800-20-880. The petitioners joined the services and started working as Fisheries Extension Worker (FEW). It is informed, at the bar that the similar orders were passed by all the FFDAs. The pay scale was already stated in the order itself. In the case of Bilaspur, the pay scale was 575-15-800-20-880. The petitioners joined the services and started working as Fisheries Extension Worker (FEW). Writ Petition (S) Nos.224/2005, 3/2006, 739/2005,809/2005 & 1762/2005 filed in the year 1990, 1993 & 1998 praying for regularization of their services and for the first time in W.P.No.207512005 filed in 2000, the petitioners sought relief for treating the petitioners as Fisheries Inspectors from the date of their initial appointment. On 14-6-2000 (Annexure A/16 to W.P.No.2075/2005) some of the Fisheries Extension Workers working in FFDA, Bilaspur, were sent on deputation to the Department. This clearly indicates that the petitioners were not the employees of the Government, but they were the employees of the FFDAs. Accordingly, there were sent on deputation to the Government. The order dated 14-6-2000 reads as under: 31. The State Government thereafter considered the matter and took a policy decision as per the order dated 11-5-2006, which reads as under: 32. Consequently, seniority list accordingly with effect from 11-5-2006 was issued on 16-5-2006. The petitioners were granted revised pay scale of Rs.350080-4700-5200. 33. The contention of the petitioners that the orders dated 25-1 0-1983, 12-6-1984 & 5-7-1984 are the appointment orders passed by the Director, Fisheries, is not sustainable. It is clearly provided that the appointment order may be issued by the concerned FFDA. FFDA, Rajnandgaon, appointed Anil Kumar on the post of Production Specialist (Training) Branch on the pay scale Rs. 740-15-800-20-900-25-1000-30-1180. By order dated 17-1-1984 S.K. Tyagi was appointed by the Government and, as such, the order was passed by the Director, Fisheries Department, which reads as under; 34. Likewise all the appointment orders were issued by the respective Chief Executive Officer/Chairman of the FFDAs. It is, therefore, evident from the various orders filed in the petitions that the appointment orders in case of the petitioners, who were appointed in FFDAs, were passed by the Chief Executive Officer/ Chairman of FFDAs. Likewise all the appointment orders were issued by the respective Chief Executive Officer/Chairman of the FFDAs. It is, therefore, evident from the various orders filed in the petitions that the appointment orders in case of the petitioners, who were appointed in FFDAs, were passed by the Chief Executive Officer/ Chairman of FFDAs. It is true that the State Government has considered the cases of the petitioners, working in the FFDAs, on several occasions for their absorption and regularization in the Government department, but no final order could be passed as is apparent from the letter dated 4-8- 1992 (Annexure-R/1 to W.P.(S) No.224/2005) and, thereafter, no decision was taken on the recommendations made by the various authorities till the order dated 11-5-2006 was passed by the State Government. The options were also invited earlier, but that is not conclusive to determine the status of the petitioners. Thus, it cannot be held that there was any irregularity. The petitioners were never appointed by the Government and they were never borne in the Fisheries Department and, as such, issue of common gradation list and grant of promotion accordingly was without any basis and unsustainable. 35. The decision of Han'ble Supreme Court in the matter of E. P. Royappa Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and another cited by learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is not relevant to the facts of the case, as that case deals with posting of the Chief Secretary. 36. Reliance of the petitioners in the matter of Ramana Dayaram Shetty Vs. The International Airport Authority a/India and other in support of the contention that arbitrary decision of the executive Government is subject to judicial review. There is no quarrel on the principle. If it is found that the decision was arbitrary and unreasonable, this Court cannot restrain itself from reviewing the decision of the executive judicially. 37. All the cases cited by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners are on judicial review. 38. In that event, if it is found that the exercise of power by the executive Government is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, it is well settled principle of law that a constitutional Court has full jurisdiction to entertain the petition and review the order judicially. 38. In that event, if it is found that the exercise of power by the executive Government is arbitrary, unreasonable and discriminatory, it is well settled principle of law that a constitutional Court has full jurisdiction to entertain the petition and review the order judicially. This is not the case in the matters on hand wherein basically the issue involved is the nature of appointment, grant of promotion, seniority list and whether petitioners are entitled to all the benefits from the date of initial appointment, on absorption by the State Government. 39. In the matter of Asif Hameed and others Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and other the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "19. When a State action is challenged, the function of the court is to examine the action in accordance with law and to determine whether the legislature or the executive has acted within the powers and functions assigned under the Constitution and if not, the court must strike down the action. While doing so the court must remain within its self-imposed limits. The court sits in judgment on the action of a coordinate branch of the government. While exercising power of judicial review of administrative action, the court is not an appellate authority. The Constitution does not permit the court to direct or advise the executive in matters of policy or to sermonize qua any matter which under the Constitution lies within the sphere of legislature or executive, provided these authorities do not transgress their constitutional limits or statutory powers." 40. In the matter of State of Haryana and others Vs. Ram Kumar Mann in respect of doctrine of discrimination the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "3 …… The doctrine of discrimination is founded upon existence of an enforceable right. He was discriminated and denied equality as some similarly situated persons had been given the same relief. Article 14 would apply only when invidious discrimination is meted out to equals and similarly circumstanced without any rational basis or relationship in that behalf. The respondent has no right, whatsoever and cannot be given the relief wrongly given to them, i.e., benefit of withdrawal of resignation. The High Court was wholly wrong in reaching the conclusion that there was invidious discrimination. The respondent has no right, whatsoever and cannot be given the relief wrongly given to them, i.e., benefit of withdrawal of resignation. The High Court was wholly wrong in reaching the conclusion that there was invidious discrimination. If we cannot allow a wrong.to perpetrate, an employee, after committing mis-appropriation of money, is dismissed from service and subsequently that order is withdrawn and he is reinstated into the service. Can a similarly circumstanced person claim equality under Section 14 for reinstatement? The answer is obviously "No". In a converse case, in the first instance, one may be wrong but the wrong order cannot be the foundation for claiming equality for enforcement of the same order. ..... " The above "decision was referred with approval in the matter of Ekta Shakti Foundation Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi. 41. In the matter of Ekta Shakti Foundations (supra) while deciding the policy decision of the Government, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "The scope of judicial enquiry is confined to the question whether the decision taken by the Government is against any statutoty provisions or [is violative of] the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution. Thus, the position is that even if the decision taken by the Government does not appear to be agreeable to the court, it cannot interfere. 6. The correctness of the reasons which prompted the Government in decision-making taking one course of action instead of another is not a matter of concern in judicial review and the court is not the appropriate forum for such investigation. 7. The policy decision must be left to the Government as it alone can adopt (sic decide) which policy should be adopted after considering all the points from different angles. In the matter of policy decisions or exercise of discretion by the Government so long as the infringement of fundamental rights is not shown the courts will have no occasion to interfere and the court will not and should not substitute its own judgment for the judgment of the executive in such matters. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government." 42. In the matter of Ashwani Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar and other the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "13. In assessing the propriety of a decision of the Government the court cannot interfere even if a second view is possible from that of the Government." 42. In the matter of Ashwani Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar and other the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "13. So far as the question of confirmation of these employees whose entry it self was illegal and void, is concerned, it is to be noted that question of confirmation or regularisation of an irregularly appointed candidate would arise if the candidate concerned is appointed in an irregular manner or on ad hoc basis against an available vacancy which is already sanctioned. But if the initial entry itself is unauthorised and is not against any sanctioned vacancy, question of regularising the incumbent on such a non-existing vacancy would never survive for consideration and even if such purported regularisation or confirmation is given it would be an exercise in futility. It would amount to decorating a still-born baby. Under these circumstances there was no occasion to regularise them or to give them valid confirmation………." This decision has been referred with approval in the matter of State of Jharkhand & Drs. Vs. Manshu Kumbhkar. 43. In the identical facts in the matter of M.P. State Textile Corporation Ltd Vs. Mahendra and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "5 ……..In our opinion, since the respondents accepted the pay scale and did not challenge the same for more than a decade, it is not open for them to demand the pay scale that may be available to similarly situated workmen in the appellant Corporation. To that extent we are of the opinion that the Labour Court has erred." 44. Applying the well settled principles of law to the facts of the cases on hand, it is not noticed that there was any discrimination as the petitioners were appointed way back by the Chief Executive Officer/Chairman of the FFDAs, they cannot claim that they were appointed on the basis of merit list of the trained candidates, by the State Government. No appointment order was issued by the State Government and, as such, no master and servant relationship existed between the Government and the petitioners. 45. In the matter of Devdutta and others Vs. State of M.P. and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of absorption observed as under: "8. No appointment order was issued by the State Government and, as such, no master and servant relationship existed between the Government and the petitioners. 45. In the matter of Devdutta and others Vs. State of M.P. and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court in respect of absorption observed as under: "8. Now coming to the question of seniority, the term "absorbed" in Service Jurisprudence with reference to a post in the very nature of things implies that an employee who has not been holding a particular post in his own right by virtue of either recruitment or promotion to that post but is holding a different post in a different department is brought to that post either on deputation or by transfer and is subsequently absorbed in that post where after he becomes a holder of that post in his own right and loses his lien on his parent post ..... " 46. In the matter of K.C. Vasudeva and others Vs. Union of India the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "it is perfectly within the power of the Government to have a rationalisation of the entire situation and if it thinks fit even to give weightage or credit for service in the C.C.G. But all this must be done after due consideration and not by mere acts of compassion." 47. In the matter of Fertilizer Corporation of India Ltd. Vs. Union of India and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that "for the permanent absorption of the respondent, the appellant Corporation had to issue an order or notification to that effect. That finding cannot be recorded by a court merely on the basis of some correspondence or order or notification issued by others." 48. In the matter of M. Ramachandran Vs. Govind Ballabh and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "12 Seniority is a relevant (sic) term having reference to the class, category and the grade to which the reference is made. Length of service is a recognised method of determining the seniority. Such length of service shall have reference to the class, category or grade which the parties were holding at the relevant time. Length of service is a recognised method of determining the seniority. Such length of service shall have reference to the class, category or grade which the parties were holding at the relevant time. It, therefore, follows that total length of service is not relevant for determining the seniority but length of service to a particular class, category or grade is relevant consideration for the purposes of counting the period with respect to length of service for the purposes of determining the seniority……….” 49. In the matter of Indu Shekhar Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and others the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under: "26. They, therefore, exercised their right of option. Once they obtained entry on the basis of election, they cannot be allowed to turn round and contend that the conditions are illegal. (See R.N Gosain Vs. Yashpal Dhir. Ramankutty Guptan Vs. Avara and Bank of India Vs. O.P. Swarnakar) Furthermore, there is no fundamental right in regard to the counting of the services rendered in an autonomous body. The past services can be taken into consideration only when the Rules permit the same or where a special situation exists, which would entitle the employee to obtain such benefit of past service." 50. On laches and delay in agitating the grievances before the Court the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Punjab and another Vs. Balkaran Singh observed as under: "22. According to us, the suit is also barred by acquiescence and estoppel. No one in a service can sleep over the question of seniority for more than 12 years and then come to court seeking a relief which will upset the seniority of a number of persons who had been shown as seniors in the respective seniority lists. Therefore, on the face of it, a declaratory relief that will have the effect of altering a twelve-year-old and a nine-year-old seniority list could not have been granted by the courts below." 51. In the matter of U.P. Jal Nigam and another Vs. Jashwant Singh and another : "6. The question of delay and laches has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. In the matter of U.P. Jal Nigam and another Vs. Jashwant Singh and another : "6. The question of delay and laches has been examined by this Court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with the situation, can his writ petition be heard after a couple of years on the ground that same relief should be granted to him as was granted to person similarly situated who was vigilant about his rights and challenged his retirement which was said to be made on attaining the age of 58 years…….." 52. In the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various cases as cited above, and applying the same to the facts of the cases on hand, it is ordered that: (i) The petitioners were not appointed by the Director, Fisheries and as such they were not the Government employees, till they were absorbed by the State Government. They were the employees of FFDAs from the date of their initial appointments. (ii) The petitioners were absorbed pursuant to policy decision dated 11-5-2006 (Annexure-PI I to writ petition No.6092/2006) in the Government department. (iii) The petitioners are entitled to fixation of pay, seniority and other benefits in accordance with the policy decision dated 11-5-2006. 53. In view of the above, all the petitions are dismissed. Costs easy. Petitions Dismissed. 15. (2006) 11 srrd"" 2008(3) C.G.L.J. 8m!. Rambali Madiya Vs. Sudan!i @ Danteshar Rao 413