JUDGMENT : By Court: The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order of rejection of his claim contained in letter dated 07.08.2002 and for a direction upon the respondents to fix the scale of pay in ML-2 grade. 2. The petitioner joined the post of Pharmacist-A in the Indian Iron and Steel company Limited (IISCO Ltd.) in the pay-scale of Rs.690-1,130/-. As the wife of the petitioner had joined the post of Staff Nurse in Bokaro Steel Plant, the petitioner sought transfer to Bokaro Steel Plant on an equivalent post and in equal grade. The services of the petitioner was thereafter transferred in Bokaro Steel Plant on his request and he was placed in ML-1 Scale, i.e. in the scale of Rs. 595-1,065/- with effect from 10.11.1987. The petitioner's grievance is that although similarly situated persons were granted N-6/L-6 grade, his pay-scale was not fixed in the said grade and his representation was also not decided. Finally, on 07.08.2002, the petitioner was communicated 'reply of regret' with respect to his claim. 3. Respondents have filed counter-affidavit in which it has been admitted that the petitioner's wife had joined Bokaro Steel Plant on 31.12.1982 as Staff Nurse and on his request, petitioner was transferred to the Bokaro Steel Plant on 10.11.1987. At the time when Pharmacists in L-6 grade were placed in ML-2 grade, petitioner was in ML-1 grade and therefore, his case was not considered for promotion in ML-2 grade. 4. The petitioner has filed a supplementary-affidavit reiterating his claim for promotion in ML-2 grade with effect from 07.10.1989. In paragraph-13 of the supplementary-affidavit, it has been stated, “That in the instant writ application the petitioner is praying for grant of the said higher grade and pay-scale of ML-2 w.e.f. 07.10.1989 as he was deemed to be in L-6 grade since 1987 and much earlier than 07.10.1989.” 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that although the petitioner was placed in L-6 grade with effect from 10.11.1987 and the Management itself took a decision to place all Pharmacists who were in L-6 grade, in ML-2 grade with effect from 07.10.1989, still the petitioner has not been given the said grade with effect from 07.10.1989. 7. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the claim of the petitioner. 7. Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the claim of the petitioner. He has submitted that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. In any case, since the petitioner has accepted the subsequent promotions, which were given to him on 31.12.1991, 31.12.1995 and 31.12.1999, he cannot be permitted to challenge those orders after so many years. If subsequent promotions given to the petitioner are interfered with, it would result in a chaotic situation as the seniority of so many persons would be affected. 8. From the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. I find that the respondents have placed the petitioner in L-6 scale with effect from 10.11.1987, i.e. the date of his joining at Bokaro Steel Plant. It is also clear from the record that subsequently all Pharmacists who were in L-6 grade were placed in ML-2 grade with effect from 07.10.1989. Once the petitioner was placed in L-6 grade and all Pharmacists who were in L-6 grade were placed in ML-2 grade with effect from 07.10.1989, the petitioner is definitely entitled to be placed in ML-2 grade with effect from 07.10.1989. Although a plea has been raised by the respondents that seniority of the petitioner would be counted from the date of his joining at Bokaro Steel Plant, and he was in ML-1 grade at the time when Pharmacists of L-6 grade were placed in ML-2 grade, I am of the opinion that the petitioner who has also been placed in L-6 grade with effect from the date of his initial joining in Bokaro Steel Plant, would be entitled for his placement in ML-2 with effect from 07.10.1989. Paragraph-9 and 10 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents are reproduced below. 9. “That in reply to paragraph 9 of the writ application, it is stated that since the scale the petitioner was holding in IISCO was almost at par with our L-6 scale i.e. 690-1,152/- his case was reviewed and he was placed in L-6 scale w.e.f. 10.11.1987, the date of his joining in BSL vide order dated 04.07.1991. 10. That in reply to paragraph 10 & 11 of the writ application, it is stated that as per the management decision, all pharmacists who were in L-6 grade, were placed in ML-2 grade w.e.f. 07.10.1989. 10. That in reply to paragraph 10 & 11 of the writ application, it is stated that as per the management decision, all pharmacists who were in L-6 grade, were placed in ML-2 grade w.e.f. 07.10.1989. At that time Shri Satyam was in ML-1 grade. So his case was not considered for ML-2 grade. It is stated that the request made by Shri Satyam on 22.07.2002 (Annexure-7) was examined in detail. Since no merit was found in his request, a regret reply was sent to him on 07.08.2002. It is stated that prior to joining BSL, Shri Satyam was in scale of 690-1,130/- on IISCO. On his own request he was transferred to Bokaro Steel Plant in the scale of Rs.595-1,065/- (ML-1) and he joined HSL on 10.11.1987. After that on his request, he was allowed L-6 grade i.e. Rs. 690-1,152/- from the date of his joining BSL i.e. 10.11.87. Subsequently, he was promoted under cluster promotion policy on 31.12.91, 31.12.95 and 31.12.99 in S-7, S-8 & S-9 grades respectively. It is stated that considering the stagnation in the Pharmacist Cadre, a decision was taken that all those pharmacists who were on L-6 scale were merged with ML-2 scale on 07.10.89. Subsequently the ML series were converted into L series by Tripartite Agreement on 01.01.90 as a result of which all those pharmacists who were in ML-2 scale on that day were converted to L-7 scale keeping their seniority in L-7 scale with effects from the date they were in ML-2 or L-6. It is stated that since the case of Shri Satyam about restoring his grade of L-6 on joining his BSL was decided after these two decisions i.e. 1st merger of L-6 with ML-2 and subsequent merger of ML-2 with L-7, the petitioner could not be extended the benefits of these two decisions. However, from the date of joining BSL i.e. 10.11.87, the petitioner got all the promotion in time as per Cluster Promotion Policy.” 9. In view of the above admitted position, the respondents are directed to grant monetary benefits to the petitioner as if the petitioner was placed in ML-2 grade with effect from 07.10.1989. However, such benefit would be confined for the period between 07.10.1989 and 31.12.1991, when the next promotion was given to the petitioner. In view of the above admitted position, the respondents are directed to grant monetary benefits to the petitioner as if the petitioner was placed in ML-2 grade with effect from 07.10.1989. However, such benefit would be confined for the period between 07.10.1989 and 31.12.1991, when the next promotion was given to the petitioner. Since the petitioner has accepted all the subsequent promotions without any protest and there is long delay in seeking review of those promotions, I am of the opinion that petitioner can be granted this benefit only till 31.12.1991, i.e. when next promotion was given to him. It is stated that the petitioner has already retired from service on 29.05.2012 and Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, learned counsel for the respondents has fairly submitted that order of the Court would be complied with within a period of eight weeks. . 10. The writ petition is partly allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms.