ORDER : Akil Kureshi, J. The petitioner is a retired teacher who superannuated with effect from 28.2.1988 He seeks benefit of higher pay scale flowing from G.R dated 16.8.1994 In fact, Deputy Director of Education had passed an order in his favour on 17.10.1996 granting benefits of three higher pay scales with effect from 1.6.1987 Despite such order, when the petitioner was not granted such benefits, he approached the Civil Services Tribunal who dismissed the appeal as not being maintainable. There upon, petitioner filed this petition in the year 2000. So far, the respondents have not filed reply nor granted benefits to the petitioner. Thus, a Government employee who retired in the year 1988, in the year 2016, is still waiting for his turn to get the matter heard on merits. 2. Learned AGP sought to resist the petition without a reply, raising two grounds. He firstly contended that in order to avail benefit of higher pay scale, petitioner had to agree to surrender the benefits of selection grade which he had received during his service. He stated that the petitioner has not deposited such difference though communicated to him. His second contention was that petitioner had during his service declined promotions and in view of clause 3(24) of the said GR dated 16.8.1994, he would not be entitled to the benefits of higher pay scale. 3. Prima-facie, both these grounds seem to be inadequate to withhold the benefits of higher pay scale to the petitioner. Firstly, if there was any condition to surrender the benefit of selection grade authorities could have pointed out the same to the petitioner or at any rate to the Court who would have immediately put the petitioner to such a condition. Regarding the second ground, it appears that clause 3(24) of the said GR does not disentitle those who declined the promotions prior to 5.7.1991 provided that other conditions of the GR dated 5.7.1991 were fulfilled. 4. Both these issues could have been dealt with finally had the Government filed a proper reply. On 19.12.2012, learned Single Judge had lamented not filing of the reply for over 10 years and made following observations: “1. Heard Ms. Bhoomi M. Thakore for the petitioner. It is indicated that the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28th February 1988. On 19.12.2012, learned Single Judge had lamented not filing of the reply for over 10 years and made following observations: “1. Heard Ms. Bhoomi M. Thakore for the petitioner. It is indicated that the petitioner has retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 28th February 1988. The petitioner was entitled to 3 higher grade scale as per the policy of the government dated 5th July 1991. Subsequently order was also passed by the Office of the Commissioner of Higher Education on 17th October 1996 Annexure-D page 18. Thus, on the basis of the said office order, prima facie, it appears that there is no dispute that the petitioner is entitled to all the three Higher Grade Scales. It is indicated by the learned Advocate that the only objection raised with regard to said office order is that the 3rd Higher Grade Scale of the pay scale of Rs. 2200-4000 then prevailing, the Commissioner of Higher Education could not have granted that scale since it was within the competence of the Government in Education Department. It is also indicated that even if the said Higher Grade Scale is kept aside for the time being, the first two Higher Grade Scales which were granted, even the said benefit is actually not given to the petitioner and the same has remained on papers. 2. The petition was filed in the year 2000 and it is indicated that the petitioner died on 16 December 2003. 3. Learned A.G.P Ms. Jyoti Mehta prays for time. At her request list on 25th January 2013”. 5. Three more years have passed and yet the Government has not put its act together. The respondents shall, if they so desire, file reply latest by 1st February, 2016. Such reply shall be taken on record upon payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/- to the petitioner. If the reply is not filed by the specified date, the Court shall proceed without any reply.