JUDGMENT Hon’ble A.P. Sahi, J.—Heard Smt. Durga Tiwari learned counsel for the petitioner at length and Sri K.N. Misra for the respondent Bank. 2. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that he has been illegally denied his benefits to which he was entitled after reinstatement. The submission in essence is that after the petitioner was reinstated under the order dated 12th July, 1996 the petitioner was entitled to all financial benefits except those benefits of which the petitioner was deprived of under the said order. Learned counsel contends that after the reinstatement of the petitioner he has not been given any increments. 3. The submission advances on the strength that once the petitioner has been reinstated the increments were admissible as the petitioner retired in the year 2006. Having not received the said financial benefits the petitioner has moved a representation for consideration and ultimately? the petitioner approached this Court in the year 2006 by filing a Writ Petition No. 16024 of 2006 which was disposed of with a direction that the authority may dispose of the representation of the petitioner. The said representation has been rejected by the order dated 5th July, 2006. 4. Impeaching the said order learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the order proceeds on a technical ground of having not filed the representation before the appropriate authority and having not filed an appeal in terms of the regulations framed in respect thereof. Learned counsel submits that the consideration has been rejected on a mere technical ground and not on the merits of the claim, therefore, the impugned order deserves to be set aside. 5. Sri K.N. Misra learned counsel for the respondent Bank submits that the petitioner was not allowed to cross the efficiency bar against which the petitioner did not make any complaint while he remained in service. In the absence of any such complaint made by the petitioner there was no occasion for the authority to proceed to consider the grant of increments. In the absence of any such material the petitioner having not crossed the efficiency bar the question of grant of increments does not arise in view of the Regulation 44 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees’ Service Regulations, 1975. The same is quoted below for ready reference. “44. In the absence of any such material the petitioner having not crossed the efficiency bar the question of grant of increments does not arise in view of the Regulation 44 of the U.P. Co-operative Societies Employees’ Service Regulations, 1975. The same is quoted below for ready reference. “44. Increments—(i) Annual increment in the given time scale shall usually be allowed to the employee on the first day of the month in which it becomes due. (ii) An employee shall be allowed to cross efficiency bar if and when due after proper consideration of the report of his work and worth from his superior officer and character roll entries for the last three years and on the sanction of the appointing authority. (iii) An employee,whose efficiency bar has not been allowed, may appeal to the appropriate authority as per Appendix “D”. (iv) The case of an employee who has been held up at the efficiency bar shall be reviewed every year until it is allowed by the competent authority. The authority allowing the crossing of the efficiency bar shall also fix the pay of the employee at a stage not exceeding what he would have reached had he not been held up at the efficiency bar : Provided that no arrears shall be allowed.” 6. Sri Misra further contends that even assuming that the said claim of the petitioner was liable to be accepted yet no arrears can be paid to the petitioner. 7. Having perused the records and having heard learned counsel for the parties. It is evident that an employee who has not been allowed to cross the efficiency bar has the right to move an appeal before the appropriate authority under Regulation 44 itself. In the absence of any such appeal having been filed by the petitioner prior to his retirement, or even immediately thereafter, there was no occasion for the authorities to have taken up this matter on their own. The writ petition which was filed by the petitioner was after five years of his retirement in the year 2006. In such a situation the gross laches on the part of the petitioner disentitles him for any relief and also for the reasons contained in the submissions raised on behalf of the respondents as noted above. 8. The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. —————