Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsels appearing for the respondents. 2. The Brief facts of the case, as stated by the petitioner, are as follows: The petitioner had joined in service, as a Secondary Grade Assistant, on 9.9.1965, in Elango Aided Middle School, Kesavapuram, Polur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District. While so, he got himself transferred to the third respondent school, on 30.6.1984, with the consent of the managements of both the schools. Thereafter, he had acquired B.Ed. Qualification, based on which one set of incentive increments had been sanctioned to the petitioner, on 28.4.1983. On being appointed in the third respondent School, the petitioner came to know that one M.K.Subramanian, working as a Secondary Grade Assistant, in the third respondent School, who had joined in service, on 22.11.1965, was getting higher scale of pay, than that of the petitioner, even though he was junior to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner had raised the issue before the first respondent claiming parity in pay. However, the first respondent, by his proceedings, dated 11.6.2004, had rejected the request of the petitioner to step up his scale of pay, on par with that of M.K.Subramaniyan. In such circumstances, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the first respondent it has been stated that the issue relating to the fixation of pay scale of the senior, on par with the pay scale of the junior could be considered only between the persons working in the same unit. In the present case the petitioner, who was working in a different unit, namely, Elango Aided Middle School, Kesavapuram, had been transferred to another unit, which is the third respondent school. As such, he was placed in the junior cadre. As far as the petitioner is concerned only the station seniority could be considered. As such, the petitioner cannot be considered to be senior to M.K.Subramanian, as the petitioner had joined the third respondent school only on 30.6.1984. Whereas M.K.Subramanian had joined in service, in the said school, on 21.11.1965. Therefore, the request made by the petitioner for pay parity, with M.K.Subramanian, had been rightly rejected. 4. As such, the petitioner cannot be considered to be senior to M.K.Subramanian, as the petitioner had joined the third respondent school only on 30.6.1984. Whereas M.K.Subramanian had joined in service, in the said school, on 21.11.1965. Therefore, the request made by the petitioner for pay parity, with M.K.Subramanian, had been rightly rejected. 4. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the third respondent it has been stated that the writ petition is not maintainable due to`laches’. The writ petitioner had filed the writ petition several years after he had retired from service, on attaining the age of superannuation. The petitioner had retired from service in the year, 2001. However, he has preferred the present writ petition before this Court, only in the year, 2006. The petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the writ petition. Since the interse seniority between the petitioner and M.K.Subramanian would be reckoned only from their respective dates of joining in the service in the third respondent school, the petitioner cannot claim that he is senior to M.K.Subramanian. M.K.Subramanian had been working in the third respondent school, from 21.11.1965. Whereas, the petitioner had joined the third respondent school, only on 30.6.1984. Therefore, M.K.Subramanian had been considered to be senior to the petitioner in the third respondent school. Therefore, the request of the petitioner, for stepping up his scale of pay, on par with M.K.Subramanian, cannot be accepted. 5. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has not shown sufficient cause or reason to set aside the impugned order of the first respondent, dated 11.6.2004, rejecting the request of the petitioner to step up his scale of pay on par with that of M.K.Subramanian. Even though the petitioner is said to have joined in service, on 9.9.1965, in Elango Aided Middle School, Kesavapuram, Polur Taluk, Thiruvannamalai District, he had joined the third respondent school only, on 30.6.1984. Whereas, M.K.Subramanian has been working in the third respondent school, from 21.11.1965. 6. Further, it is seen that the petitioner had been transferred to the third respondent school only based on his request. Whereas, M.K.Subramanian has been working in the third respondent school, from 21.11.1965. 6. Further, it is seen that the petitioner had been transferred to the third respondent school only based on his request. When he had been transferred to the third respondent school and placed below M.K.Subramanian, in the seniority list, he had not protested against such fixation of seniority. Further, it is seen that the petitioner had not raised the issue during his service, nor had he raised it at the time of his retirement from service, in the year, 2001. In fact he has filed the present writ petition nearly five years thereafter, after he had retired from service. In such circumstances, the writ petition, preferred by the petitioner, deserves to be dismissed. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.