ORDER Subhash B. Adi , J.—Petitioner, who is the party-in-person has sought for a direction in the nature of mandamus directing, the first respondent to honour the settlement reached vide Annexure 'A' and as per the order of this Court in W.P. No. 5712/2000 dated 25.08.2003 with regard to stepping up of salary of the petitioner on par with that of his junior Sri G.D. Balakrishna with effect from 01.04.1993 and grant of other consequential benefits including arrears of salary and interest with effect from 01.04.1993 to 30.04.2008 and also to credit 121/2 days vacation leave to the leave account for the purpose of reimbursement. An additional prayer is sought for quashing of Annexure 'G' dated 26.02.2004, the reply given to the representation of the petitioner. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that, the petitioner had worked in the respondent - establishment and retired on 30.04.2008. Since his pay scale was not protected on par with Sri G.D. Balakrishna, he approached this Court in W.P. No. 5712/2000. This Court, on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondent issued a direction as under:- I. Writ Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute. II. A direction is issued to the petitioner to make a fresh representation inter alia requesting the respondent - Company to step up his pay scale on par with that of one Sri G.D. Balakrishna and also to credit 12 1/2 days' vacation leave to his leave account within a month's time from today. III. If such representation is filed by the petitioner within the time granted by this Court, the respondent Company is directed to consider that representation in accordance with law and in accordance with the Service Rules/Regulations of the respondent Company, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Court's order. IV. All the other contentions of both the parties are left open. Ordered accordingly. 3. In pursuance of the said order, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent dated 05.09.2003 inter alia claiming for stepping up of his pay equal to that of Balakrishna with effect from 01.04.1993 and also for adjustment of 12 1/2 days vacation leave. This representation was considered by the respondent and a reply dated 26.02.2004 produced at Annexure 'G' has been given to the petitioner. This representation was considered by the respondent and a reply dated 26.02.2004 produced at Annexure 'G' has been given to the petitioner. Unsatisfied with the said reply, the petitioner is ariain before this Court. 4. The petitioner submits that Balakrishna was junior to him and the circular dated 4th August 1987, wherein a clarification order was issued inter alia stating that in order to be eligible for stepping up of pay under the provisions of P.C. No. 543 dated 21.05.1985 and P.C. No. 566 dated 26.08.1986, an officer should be senior both in the higher as well as in the lower salary grade. 5. The party-in-person submits that this circular is only an internal reference anti it does not have the force of law. It is illegally prepared to deny the benefit to the petitioner in as much as Balakrishna was given revised pay scale benefit with effect from 01.04.1993 whereas the petitioner is given revised pay scale benefit from 01.10.1993 by wrongly treating the petitioner as junior to Balakrishna. He also submitted that though the petitioner had applied for C.L., the respondent - establishment has treated the same as E.L., by manipulating the attendance register despite the fact that there were C.L. to his credit. 6. He further submitted that this Court has issued a direction and if the direction issued by this Court is not complied, it is disobedience of the order of this Court. relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in 2007 AIR SCW 5577 in the matter of THE COMMISSIONER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD Vs. C. MUDDAIAL and pars No. 31 of the said judgment reads as under: 31. We are of the considered opinion that once a direction is issued by a competent Court, it has to be obeyed and implemented without any reservation. If an order passed by a Court of Law is not comped with or is ignored, there will be an end of Rule of law. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. If a party against whom such order is made has grievance, the only remedy available to him is to challenge the order by taking appropriate proceedings known to law. But it cannot be made ineffective by not complying with the directions on a specious plea that no such directions could have been issued by the Court. In our judgment, upholding of such argument would result in chaos and confusion and would seriously affect and impair administration of justice. The argument of the Board, therefore, has no force and must be rejected. He also submitted that the respondent - establishment in order to deny his legitimate claim has not considered his representation in accordance with law and this Court had directed the respondents to consider the representation in accordance with law. Failure to consider his representation in accordance with law is disobedience of the order of this Court. 7. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent submitted that earlier, the petitioner had approached this Court in W.P. No. 5712/2000. Petitioner had made submission/ that he made a representation in 1996. However, the writ petition was filed in 2000. As such, the counsel representing the respondents had made submission that if the petitioner makes another representation, it will be considered. It is in consonance with the same, representation of the petitioner was considered and a detailed reply as per Annexure 'G' dated 26.02.2004 has been issued to the petitioner. He also relied on the circular, according to which, in order to have a benefit of stepping up, an officer should not only be senior in the grape scale, but, he must be senior in the lower grade scale also and to show that the petitioner was not senior in the lower grade, he relied on the chart prepared as stated in para No. 7 of the objections statement and submitted that Balakrishna was promoted to Grade on 16.03.1987, whereas, the petitioner was promoted on 01.08.1988. balakrishna was promoted to Grade IV with effect from 01.04.1993, whereas, the petitioner is promoted to Grade IV on 01.10.1992. balakrishna was promoted to Grade IV with effect from 01.04.1993, whereas, the petitioner is promoted to Grade IV on 01.10.1992. Though the petitioner was promoted to Grade IV on 01.10.1992 since Balakrishna was promoted to Grade III earlier to the petitioner and the circular required that the officer claiming for stepping up of the pay has to be senior not only in the grade where he is working, but also in the previous grade and since the petitioner was not senior in the previous grade as he was promoted after Balakrishna was promoted, he was not considered for stepping up on par with Balakrishna as on 01.04.1993. 8. As regard to the claim of the petitioner for credit of 12 1/2 days vacation leave of the petitioner, he submitted that in December 1995, there was shortage of 41 1/2 hours duty as against which, 51/2 days or vacation leave was adjusted. Since there was no leave available, the leave application of the petitioner was treated as E.L. Similarly, in January 1996, there was a shortage of 39 1/2 hours, for which, five days of casual leave was adjusted. In June 1996 and October 1997, there way shortage of 8 hours and 6 1/4 hours respectively as against which, one vacation leave each was adjusted and accordingly, an endorsement has been issued. 9. Petitioner earlier had filed a writ petition. This Court had not gone into the merits of the case. It had only directed the respondents to consider the representation that would be filed by the petitioner for stepping up of his pay scale equal to that of Balakrishna and also to credit 12 1/2 days of vacation leave. Direction to consider the representation does not mean a direction to grant the stepping-up of scale or to grant 12 1/2 days ieavo to the credit of the petitioner. The matter was to be considered by the respondents on merits of the claim of the petitioner and on consideration, the respondents were required to issue a communication. As per communication at Annexure 'G' dated 26.02.2004, which is challenged in this writ petition, both the aspects i.e., stepping up of pay scale and 121/2 days of vacation leave adjusted as E.L., have been considered. Apart from that, a detailed statement of objection has been filed in this case. 10. As per communication at Annexure 'G' dated 26.02.2004, which is challenged in this writ petition, both the aspects i.e., stepping up of pay scale and 121/2 days of vacation leave adjusted as E.L., have been considered. Apart from that, a detailed statement of objection has been filed in this case. 10. As far as stepping up of pay scale of the petitioner to that of Balakrishna is concerned, the circular dated 04.08.1987 has not been called in question by the petitioner. Balakrishna was promoted to Grade III on 16.03.1987 and the petitioner was promoted to Grade III on 01.08.1988. The circular dated 04.08.1987 has come into force after the promotion of Balakrishna. It states that the officer, in order to be eligible for stepping of pay, should be senior both in the higher as well as in the lower salary grade. The lower salary grade was Grade III and the higher salary Grade IV. It is clear from the material produced by the respondents that Balakrishna was promoted to Grade III earlier to the petitioner. Relying on the said circular, the respondent has issued a reply to the petitioner. Since the circular states that for consideration of stepping up of pay of an officer, both the higher as well as the lower salary grade has to be considered, the impugned reply at Annexure 'G' is issued by considering the same. There is nothing wrong in the consideration made by the respondents as far as the claim of the petitioner for stepping up of his pay is concerned. Admittedly, in Grade III, petitioner was junior to Balakrishna. Though he is senior to Balakrishna in salary Grade IV, as per the circular dated 04.08.1987, both Grades have to be considered. As such, I find no error in the impugned endorsement. 11. As regard to the claim of the petitioner for credit of 12 1/2 days Vacation leave, the objection statement of the respondents reveals that there was a shortage of hours in the attendance of the petitioner during December 1995, January 1996, June 1996 and October 1996, against which 5 days of casual leave and 7 1/12 days of vacation leave, which were available to the petitioner, have been adjusted. Against the shortage of hours in the attendance of the petitioner, the management has adjusted the vacation leave. 12. Against the shortage of hours in the attendance of the petitioner, the management has adjusted the vacation leave. 12. Apart from this, all these events have occurred way back ill 1987, 1988 and 1995. But, the petitioner has not chosen to raise any objection or little finger against these leave adjustments or even the circular, which came into force from 04.08.1987 and he had filed writ petition only in 2000. This Court only issued direction to the respondents to consider the representation, based on which, a reply has been issued. In my opinion, apart from the belated writ petition, the request of the petitioner has been considered by the respondents in consonance with the circular dated 04.08.1987. If the petitioner was aggrieved by the said circular, he should have chosen to question the same and not having done so and having accepted the promotion, the petitioner is not entitled for the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. I find no reason to interfere with the impugned endorsement - Annexure 'G' nor there is any ground to issue direction. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.