JUDGMENT : P.N. Ravindran, J. The appellants are the respondents in W.P.(C)No.28124 of 2008, a writ petition filed by the sole respondent herein under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging Exts.P10 and P12 letters and seeking a declaration that he is entitled to two financial up gradations under Ext.P6 Assured Career Progression Scheme in the scale of pay of Rs.8,000-13,000 and Rs.10,000-15,200 respectively. He had also prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to consider the grant of two financial upgradations under Ext.P6 Assured Career Progression Scheme with all consequential benefits including payment of arrears of salary and allowances with interest. By judgment delivered on 7.2.2013, a learned single Judge of this court allowed the writ petition. The respondents in the writ petition have, aggrieved thereby, filed this appeal. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. The writ petitioner entered service as Junior Scientific Assistant in the Export Inspection Council on 02.08.1976. The scale of pay then applicable to the post of Junior Scientific Assistant was Rs.425-15-500-EB-15-560-20-700-EB-25-800. Even before the writ petitioner completed the period of probation, the Export Inspection Council invited applications from eligible persons including those employed in Government departments and Quasi Government organisations for appointment to various posts including the post of Technical Officer (Fish and Fishery Products) in the scale of pay of Rs.550-25-750-EB-30-900. Ext.P1 produced and marked in the writ petition is a copy of the notification published in that regard in the Hindu daily dated 30.07.1977. The writ petitioner who was then working as Junior Scientific Assistant in the Export Inspection Agency at Alappuzha applied. His application (Ext.P2) was admittedly routed through the Deputy Chief Executive, Export Inspection Agency, Cochin, who in turn forwarded it to the Deputy Director (Administration), Export Inspection Council, New Delhi. It is relevant in this context to note that the method of appointment to the post of Technical Officer is by promotion as well as by direct recruitment. His application (Ext.P2) was admittedly routed through the Deputy Chief Executive, Export Inspection Agency, Cochin, who in turn forwarded it to the Deputy Director (Administration), Export Inspection Council, New Delhi. It is relevant in this context to note that the method of appointment to the post of Technical Officer is by promotion as well as by direct recruitment. In the recruitment rules as it then stood in force (Ext.R2(e) produced along with the additional counter affidavit dated 10.06.2009 filed by the second respondent), it was stipulated that 75% of the vacancies in the category of Technical Officer is reserved to be filled up by promotion from among Junior Technical Officer/Entomologist Grade-II/Junior Scientific Assistant, with two years experience in the agency and 25% of the vacancies is reserved to be filled up by direct recruitment providing for reservation for SC and ST candidates as per Central Government Rules. 3. The petitioner did not, as on the date on which he applied pursuant to Ext.P1 notification, possess two years experience as Junior Scientific Assistant and he was therefore not eligible to be promoted to the category of Technical Officer. Pursuant to his application, he was called to attend the interview held at Madras on 28.11.1977, as per Ext.P3 call letter dated 14.11.1977. He appeared for the interview and after the interview he was selected and appointed along with 28 other employees of the Export Inspection Agency as per Ext.P4 office order dated 02.01.1978. The name of the writ petitioner appears at serial No.21 in the list of 29 persons named in Ext.P4. It was inter alia stipulated in Ext.P4 that the appointees will be on probation for a period of one year with effect from the date on which they assume charge of the post and that the period of probation will be liable to be extended at the discretion of the appointing authority. It was also stipulated therein that the posts are temporary [meaning thereby the post of Technical Officer (Fish and Fishery Products)] and their continuance in service will depend upon the requirements from time to time and therefore they are liable for reversion to their original post of Junior Scientific Assistant without any notice even after completion of the period of probation. It was further stipulated that even during the period of probation they will be liable for such reversion to their original post of Junior Scientific Assistant at any time without notice and without assigning any reason. 4. Pursuant to Ext.P4, the petitioner who was then working as Junior Scientific Assistant at Cochin was relieved from Cochin and he joined duty at Calcutta where he was posted, on 20.01.1978. He thereafter completed his period of probation in the category of Technical Officer (F&FP) and his probation was declared satisfactorily completed. While he was thus continuing in service as Technical Officer, the Central Government introduced Ext.P6 Assured Carrier Progression Scheme (ACP Scheme for short) on and with effect from 09.08.1999. This was on the basis of the recommendations of the 6th pay commission. The ACP Scheme contemplates the grant of first financial up-gradation after 12 years of regular service and second financial up-gradation after 12 years of regular service from the date of the first financial up-gradation subject to fulfillment of the prescribed conditions. It was also stipulated therein that two financial up-gradations under the scheme will be available only if there was no regular promotion during the prescribed periods, namely 12 years and 24 years. It was further stipulated that if an employee has already got one regular promotion, he will qualify for the second financial up-gradation only on completion of 24 years of regular service and in case he has got two promotions on a regular basis, no benefit under the ACP Scheme shall accrue. There is also a further stipulation to the effect that regular service for grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme shall be counted from the grade in which the employee was appointed by direct recruitment. 5. Ext.P6 ACP Scheme was implemented in the case of the writ petitioner and others employed in the Export Inspection Council only in the year 2003. This was as per Ext.P7 office order dated 17.11.2003 in the case of the writ petitioner. By that order, he was granted promotion to the scale of pay of Rs.8,000-275-13,500 with effect from 02.08.2000, the date on which he completed 24 years of service computed from the date of his initial entry in service as Junior Scientific Assistant in the Export Inspection Council. By that order, he was granted promotion to the scale of pay of Rs.8,000-275-13,500 with effect from 02.08.2000, the date on which he completed 24 years of service computed from the date of his initial entry in service as Junior Scientific Assistant in the Export Inspection Council. In the meanwhile, he was promoted to the category of Assistant Director (Technical) in the scale of pay of Rs.8,000-275-13,500 as per Ext.P8 proceedings dated 30.12.2000. The petitioner retired from service on 29.02.2008, on attaining the age of 60 years, while he was serving as Assistant Director (Technical). 6. The writ petitioner had, while he was in service, submitted Ext.P9 representation dated 10.02.2006 to the Director, Export Inspection Council of India, New Delhi, contending that he is entitled to the first financial up-gradation in the scale of pay of Rs.8,000-275-13,500 in August 1999 and the second financial up-gradation in the scale of pay of Rs.10,000-325-15,200 in January 2002. He had in the said representation also stated that Mr.Kalai Selvan, who had joined service in the year 1978 as Junior Scientific Assistant and was appointed to the post of Technical Officer in the year 1981, has been given both the up-gradations and is drawing salary in the scale of pay of Rs.10,000-325-15,200. The Director, Export Inspection Council considered Ext.P9 and rejected it on the ground that the petitioner's appointment as Technical Officer (F&FP) was by promotion, meaning thereby, he is entitled only to one financial up-gradation. The said decision was communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P10 letter dated 03.05.2006. 7. The petitioner again represented by submitting Ext.P11 representation dated 29.01.2008, wherein he inter alia contended that his appointment as Technical Officer (F&FP) was not by promotion, but by direct recruitment and therefore, it cannot be said that he had been promoted at any time during his service as Technical Officer. He contended that as he was promoted as Assistant Director only on 30.12.2000, long after he completed 12 years of service, he should have been given the benefit of first financial up-gradation in the year with effect from 09.08.1999 and the second financial up-gradation on 02.01.2002, on completion of 24 years of service. He contended that as he was promoted as Assistant Director only on 30.12.2000, long after he completed 12 years of service, he should have been given the benefit of first financial up-gradation in the year with effect from 09.08.1999 and the second financial up-gradation on 02.01.2002, on completion of 24 years of service. The Export Inspection Council considered the said representation, rejected it and communicated its decision to the petitioner as per Ext.P12 letter dated 06.08.2008, wherein the stand taken was that the petitioner's appointment as Technical Officer (F&FP) was by promotion and therefore, he is not eligible for benefits under the ACP Scheme. The instant writ petition was thereupon filed on 22.09.2008, challenging Exts.P10 and P12 letters and seeking the following reliefs: (i). To quash Ext.P10 and P12 by the issuance of a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ order or direction, (ii). To declare that the petitioner is entitled to two financial upgradations under the Assured Career Progression Scheme in 1998 and 2002 to the grades of 8,000-13,000 and 10,000-15,200 respectively, (iii). To issue a writ of mandamus or other appropriate writ order or direction commanding the respondents to consider the petitioner for grant of two financial upgradations under the Assured Career Progression Scheme in 1998 and 2002 to the grades of 8,000-13,000 and 10,000-15,200 respectively, with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances with interest @ 18% per annum from the date on which they fell due to the date of payment, (iv). Grant such other reliefs as may be prayed for and the court may deem fit to grant, and (v). Grant the costs of this original application. 8. The main contention raised in the writ petition was that, the petitioner's appointment as Technical Officer (F&FP) was an appointment by direct recruitment and not by promotion, that persons similarly situate namely, B.Vikraman Nair and Kalai Selvan have been given two promotions under the ACP Scheme in the scale of pay of Rs.8,000-275-13,500 and the scale of pay of Rs.10,000-325-15,200 and therefore, the refusal to grant the same benefits to the petitioner is discriminatory and violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The respondents/appellants herein, entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit dated 24.12.2008. The respondents/appellants herein, entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit dated 24.12.2008. They contended that the petitioner's application for appointment as Technical Officer (F&FP) was considered along with the applications submitted by other departmental candidates in relaxation of the qualifications. It was however conceded in paragraph 8 of the said counter affidavit that the petitioner did not possess two years experience at the time of Ext.P2 application, which is one of the qualifications prescribed for appointment by promotion. Relying on the terms of Ext.P4 order, it was contended that even in the order appointing the petitioner as Technical Officer (F&FP), he was cautioned that even during the period of probation and thereafter also he is liable to be reverted to the post of Junior Scientific Assistant without assigning any reasons and therefore, Ext.P4 itself would indicate that he was appointed by promotion and not by direct recruitment. It was also contended that as the petitioner had not resigned from service and joined as a fresh recruit, his appointment should be treated as an appointment by promotion. 9. The learned single Judge considered the rival contentions and allowed the writ petition by judgment delivered on 07.02.2013. The learned single Judge held in paragraph 6 of the judgment that the petitioner was appointed as Technical Officer (F&FP) after interview and selection and this fact coupled with the fact that he did not have the requisite experience qualification for promotion, makes it evident that he was appointed as Technical Officer (F&FP) by direct recruitment and not by promotion. The learned single Judge also relied on Ext.P5 extract from the service book of the petitioner to hold that his appointment as Technical Officer (F&FP) was not by promotion. The learned single Judge accordingly quashed Exts.P10 and P12 and directed the appellants/respondents to take steps to grant financial up-gradation on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service, with effect from the respective due dates. The respondents in the writ petition have aggrieved thereby, filed this writ appeal. 10. We heard Sri. N.Nagaresh, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the appellants and Sri.M.R.Hariraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants invited our attention to the stipulations in Ext.P4 and contended that the appointment of the petitioner as Technical Officer (F&FP) was by promotion and not by direct recruitment. 10. We heard Sri. N.Nagaresh, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India appearing for the appellants and Sri.M.R.Hariraj, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/writ petitioner. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants invited our attention to the stipulations in Ext.P4 and contended that the appointment of the petitioner as Technical Officer (F&FP) was by promotion and not by direct recruitment. Learned counsel contended that if the petitioner was appointed by direct recruitment, it would not have been stipulated in Ext.P4 that even after completion of his probation, he will be reverted to the original post of Junior Scientific Assistant. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that in Ext.P4 itself it was stated that the post of Technical Officer (F&FP) against which the petitioner was appointed is temporary and therefore on the cessation of the post he will be liable to be reverted to the original post. Learned counsel contended that if the petitioner had been appointed by direct recruitment, such a stipulation would not have been made and therefore, he cannot, after accepting Ext.P4 order of appointment contend that he was not appointed by promotion but by direct recruitment. Learned counsel for the appellants also contended that it was only three years after Ext.P7 office order was issued, granting him the second financial up-gradation under Ext.P6 ACP Scheme on completion of 24 years of service computed from the date of his original entry in service namely 02.08.1976, that he came forward with Ext.P9 representation, claiming two financial up-gradations under Ext.P6 ACP Scheme. Learned counsel contended that as the petitioner was given financial upgradation in the scale of pay of Rs.8,000-275-13500 (the scale of pay of Assistant Director) with effect from 02.08.2000 as per Ext.P7 order dated 17.11.2003 on completion of the period of 24 years of service computed from 02.08.1976, the date on which he was first appointed to service, he cannot claim any further benefit under the ACP Scheme. Learned counsel also contended that the claim made by the petitioner is belated and cannot therefore be granted. 11. Per contra, Sri.M.R.Hariraj, learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that the appellants themselves have conceded the fact that the petitioner did not possess two years experience qualification for being promoted as Technical Officer (F&FP) and therefore they cannot contend that the petitioner's appointment as Technical Officer (F&FP) as per Ext.P4 order dated 02.01.1978, was by promotion. 11. Per contra, Sri.M.R.Hariraj, learned counsel for the writ petitioner contended that the appellants themselves have conceded the fact that the petitioner did not possess two years experience qualification for being promoted as Technical Officer (F&FP) and therefore they cannot contend that the petitioner's appointment as Technical Officer (F&FP) as per Ext.P4 order dated 02.01.1978, was by promotion. Inviting our attention to Ext.P1, learned counsel contended that Ext.P1 permitted employees of Quasi Government Organisations and Government departments to apply for the said post subject to the condition that the application should be routed through proper channel, that the petitioner had applied through proper channel and was interviewed and selected for appointment by direct recruitment as Technical Officer (F&FP). Learned counsel contended that as the petitioner was appointed by direct recruitment as Technical Officer (F&FP) and he was not granted any promotion during the period of 12 years as contemplated under Ext.P6 ACP Scheme, he is entitled to the first financial upgradation with effect from 09.08.1999, the date on which the Department of Personnel and Training, Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions, Government of India, issued O.M.No.35034/1/97-Estt.(D), dated 09.08.1999 and the second financial upgradation on completion of 24 years of service computed from 02.01.1978. Learned counsel contended that, instead, the petitioner was granted only one financial upgradation in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500 as per Ext.P7 order dated 17.11.2003. 12. Learned counsel also contended that Kalai Selvan who had joined the Export Inspection Council as Junior Scientific Assistant in the year 1978 and was appointed as Technical Officer in the year 1981 was granted two financial upgradations in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500 and in the scale of pay of Rs.10000-325-15200 and that the petitioner has been discriminated notwithstanding the fact that Kalai Selvan was promoted as Assistant Director as per office order dated 22.12.2004. Learned counsel contended that though the petitioner completed 12 years of service as Technical Officer on 02.01.1990, he became entitled to monetary benefits only with effect from 09.08.1999, the date on which ACP scheme was introduced and consequently he became entitled to be promoted to the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500 with effect from that date. Learned counsel contended that though the petitioner completed 12 years of service as Technical Officer on 02.01.1990, he became entitled to monetary benefits only with effect from 09.08.1999, the date on which ACP scheme was introduced and consequently he became entitled to be promoted to the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500 with effect from that date. Learned counsel contended that the said scale of pay was the scale of pay of Assistant Director to which the petitioner was promoted as per Ext.P8 order dated 30.12.2000, and merely for that reason, the petitioner cannot be denied the said scale of pay with effect from 09.08.1999. Learned counsel contended that as the petitioner got only one promotion namely promotion to the post of Assistant Director, the second financial upgradation in which the scale of pay of Rs. Rs.10000-325-15200 was due to him on 02.01.2002, on completion of 24 years of service computed from 02.01.1978, cannot be denied to him. 13. We have considered the submissions made at the Bar by learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the pleadings and the materials on record. It is evident from the materials placed before us, more particularly the averments made by the appellants themselves in the counter affidavit dated 24.12.2008, that the petitioner was not qualified to be promoted to the post of Technical Officer (F&FP) when Ext.P4 order dated 02.01.1978 was issued. Experience qualification was stipulated only for appointment by promotion. For direct recruits, there was no such stipulation either in Annexure R2(e) recruitment Rules or in Annexure R2(A) recruitment Rules, the latter being the Rules in force from 31.12.1977 onwards. Going by Annexure R2(e) Rules or Annexure R2(A) Rules, it cannot therefore be said that the petitioner's appointment as Technical Officer (F&FP) was by promotion. The very fact that the petitioner did not possess two years experience is proof positive of the fact that his appointment was only by direct recruitment and not by promotion. It is also not stated in Ext.P4 order of appointment or in his service book, a copy of the relevant portion of which is produced and marked as Ext.P5 that his appointment as Technical Officer (F&FP) is by promotion. The respondents however rely on the stipulations in Ext.P4 order to contend that the petitioner's appointment has to be treated as an appointment by promotion and not by direct recruitment. The respondents however rely on the stipulations in Ext.P4 order to contend that the petitioner's appointment has to be treated as an appointment by promotion and not by direct recruitment. They rely on the stipulation in Ext.P4 that even during the period of probation, he was liable to be reverted to the original post of Junior Scientific Assistant and the further stipulation that in the event of the post being abolished also, he will be liable to be reverted to the original post of Junior Scientific Assistant. 14. In our opinion, the said contention is plainly untenable. It was not stipulated in Ext.P1 that an employee working in Quasi Government Organisations or Government Departments should resign his/her job before applying for appointment. The only stipulation contained in Ext.P1 is that such candidate should apply through proper channel. The petitioner applied through proper channel only. It is also relevant in this context to note that the issuance of a notification similar to Ext.P1 is contemplated in both the sets of Recruitment Rules referred above, only when steps are being taken to fill up vacancies by direct recruitment and not by promotion. It is not stipulated either in the Rules or in Ext.P1 notification that in the event of a Departmental candidate or a candidate working in a Quasi Government organisation being appointed through direct recruitment, he/she should resign and join in the post to which he/she is appointed. It was for this reason that in Ext.P4 order it was stipulated that in the event of probation being terminated, the candidates appointed as Technical Officer will be reverted back to the original post of Junior Scientific Assistant. That apart, the appointment was only to a temporary post of Technical Officer (F&FP). The posts were later made permanent and the probation of the petitioner and others declared. As the employees concerned including the petitioner had not resigned from service and their appointment was not by promotion, their lien in the post of Junior Scientific Assistant did not stand terminated. It was for that reason, it was stipulated in Ext.P4 that in the event of their probation being terminated or the post being abolished, they will revert back to the original post of Junior Scientific Assistant. It was for that reason, it was stipulated in Ext.P4 that in the event of their probation being terminated or the post being abolished, they will revert back to the original post of Junior Scientific Assistant. That is not in our opinion, a reason to hold that appointment of the petitioner to the post of Technical Officer (F&FP) was an appointment by promotion and not an appointment by direct recruitment. We accordingly overrule the said contention. 15. That take us to the question whether the petitioner can be denied the second financial upgradation under Ext.P6 ACP Scheme in view of the fact that he was promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Technical) as per Ext.P8 order dated 30.12.2000. In view of our finding that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Technical Officer (F&FP) by direct recruitment, his service should be deemed to have commenced for the purpose of Ext.P6 ACP Scheme only on 02.01.1978 when he was appointed to the post of Technical Officer (F&FP). Ext.P6 ACP Scheme contemplates grant of two financial upgradations, the first on completion of 12 years of service and the second on completion of 24 years of service. Paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 of Annexure I to Ext.P6 ACP Scheme set out the conditions subject to which such financial upgradations are granted and for the sake of easy reference, we extract paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 below:- 3. The financial benefits under the ACP Scheme shall be granted from the date of completion of the eligibility period prescribed under the ACP Scheme or from the date of issue of these instructions whichever is later; 4. The first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme shall be allowed after 12 years of regular service and the second upgradation after 12 years of regular service from the date of the first financial upgradation subject to fulfilment of prescribed conditions. The first financial upgradation under the ACP Scheme shall be allowed after 12 years of regular service and the second upgradation after 12 years of regular service from the date of the first financial upgradation subject to fulfilment of prescribed conditions. In other words, if the first upgradation gets postponed on account of the employee not found fit or due to departmental proceedings, etc., this would have consequential effect on the second upgradation which would also get deferred accordingly; 5.1 Two financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme in the entire Government service career of an employee shall be counted against regular promotions (including in-situ promotion as fast-track promotion availed through limited departmental competitive examination) availed from the grade in which an employee was appointed as a direct recruit. This shall mean that two financial upgradations under the ACP Scheme shall be available only if no regular promotions during prescribed periods (12 and 24 years) have been availed by an employee. If an employee has already got one regular promotion, he shall qualify for the second financial upgradation only on completion of 24 years of regular service under the ACP Scheme. In case two prior promotions on regular basis have already been received by an employee, no benefit under the ACP Scheme shall accrue to him; 5.2 Residency periods (regular service) for grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme shall be counted from the grade in which an employee was appointed as a direct recruit; 6. Fulfilment of normal promotion norms (bench-mark, departmental examination, seniority-cum-fitness in the case of Group 'D' employees, etc.) for grant of financial upgradations, performance of such duties as are entrusted to the employees together with retention of old designations, financial upgradations as personal to the incumbent for the stated purposes and restriction of the ACP Scheme for financial and certain other benefits (Housing Building Advance, allotment of Government accommodation, advance, etc.) only without conferring any privileges related to higher status (e.g., invitation to ceremonial functions, deputation to higher posts, etc.) shall be ensured for grant of benefits under the ACP Scheme. 7. Financial upgradation under the Scheme shall be given to the next higher grade in accordance with the existing hierarchy in a cadre/category of posts without creating new posts for the purpose. 7. Financial upgradation under the Scheme shall be given to the next higher grade in accordance with the existing hierarchy in a cadre/category of posts without creating new posts for the purpose. However, in case of isolated posts, in the absence of defined hierarchical grades, financial upgradation shall be given by the Ministries/Departments concerned in the immediately next higher (standard/common) pay-scales as indicted in Annexure-II, which is in keeping with Part-A of the First Schedule annexed to the Notification dated September 30, 1997 of the Ministry of Finance (Department of Expenditure). For instance, incumbents of isolated posts in the pay-scale S-4, as indicated in Annexure-II, will be eligible for the proposed two financial upgradations only to the pay-scales S-5 and S-6. Financial upgradation on a dynamic basis (i.e., without having to create posts in the relevant scales of pay) has been recommended by the Fifth Central Pay Commission only for the incumbents of isolated posts which have no avenues of promotion at all. Since financial upgradations under the Scheme shall be personal to the incumbent of the isolated post, the same shall be filled at its original level (pay-scale) when vacated. Posts which are part of well-defined cadre shall not qualify for the ACP Scheme on 'dynamic' basis. The ACP benefits in their case shall be granted conforming to the existing hierarchical structure only. 16. It is inter alia stipulated therein that if an employee has got one regular promotion he shall qualify for the second upgradation only on completion of 24 years of regular service and if he has got two regular promotions, no benefit under the ACP Scheme shall accrue to him. In the instant case, nobody has a case that the petitioner got two promotions on a regular basis. As stated earlier, the ACP Scheme was introduced with effect from 09.08.1999. In paragraph 3 of Annexure I to Ext.P6 ACP Scheme, it is stipulated that the financial benefits under the ACP Scheme shall be granted from the date of completion of the eligibility period prescribed under the ACP Scheme or from the date of issue of these instructions, whichever is later. In view of the said stipulation, though the petitioner completed 12 years of service on 02.01.1990 computed from 02.01.1978, as the ACP Scheme was not in existence he became eligible for the first financial upgradation only on 09.08.1999. In view of the said stipulation, though the petitioner completed 12 years of service on 02.01.1990 computed from 02.01.1978, as the ACP Scheme was not in existence he became eligible for the first financial upgradation only on 09.08.1999. As on that date, he had not been promoted to the post of Assistant Director. The promotion came only on 30.12.2000. He was therefore entitled to the first financial upgradation meaning thereby upgradation to the next higher grade in accordance with the existing hierarchy in a cadre/category of posts without creating new posts for the purpose, as stated in paragraph 7 of Annexure-I to Ext.P6 ACP Scheme. The petitioner, who was, as on 09.08.1999 drawing salary in the scale of pay of Rs.5,500-175-9000 became eligible to the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500 which is the scale of pay of the immediate higher grade in the hierarchy namely the post of Assistant Director with effect from 09.08.1999. Instead, he was granted financial upgradation in the said scale of pay only with effect from 02.08.2000, on completion of 24 years of service. For that purpose, the appellants took into account the petitioner's original date of entry into service as Junior Scientific Assistant. The appellants did not grant him the first financial upgradation on completion of 12 years of service which, as stated earlier, was due to him as on 09.08.1999 on the terms of paragraph 3 of Annexure-I to Ext.P6 ACP Scheme, on the premise that his appointment as Technical Officer (F&FP) was by promotion. 17. In our opinion, on the terms of Ext.P6 ACP Scheme, the petitioner was entitled to the first financial upgradation in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500 on 09.08.1999 for the reason that he had by then completed 12 years of service as Technical Officer and had not completed 24 years of service as on that date and had also not been promoted. As he had not been promoted twice as on the date of completion of 24 years of regular service, in terms of paragraph 5.1 of Annexure-I of Ext.P6 ACP Acheme, he became entitled to the second financial upgradation on completion of 24 years of service computed from 02.01.1978, namely on 02.01.2002. The second financial upgradation was also denied to him. In short, in the case of the petitioner, Ext.P6 ACP Scheme was not correctly implemented. The second financial upgradation was also denied to him. In short, in the case of the petitioner, Ext.P6 ACP Scheme was not correctly implemented. It is relevant in this context to note that unlike in the case of the petitioner, two financial upgradations were granted to Kalai Selvan who joined the Organisation as Junior Scientific Assistant in 1978 and was appointed like the petitioner to the post of Technical Officer in 1981. The appellants admit the said fact. They justify the grant of two financial upgradations not only to Kalai Selvan but also to Vikraman Nair on the ground that they were appointed as Technical Officers by direct recruitment. The stand taken by the respondents is that as the petitioner got promotion as Technical Officer within 12 years of his appointment as Junior Scientific Assistant, he is not entitled to the first financial upgradation. In view of our finding that the petitioner's appointment as Technical Officer was not by promotion but an appointment by direct recruitment pursuant to a fresh selection process, that contention cannot, in our opinion, be accepted. 18. That takes us to the question whether the claim made by the petitioner is belated and is therefore liable to be rejected. As stated earlier, the petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 29.2.2008 while he was serving as Assistant Director (Technical). He was promoted to the category of Assistant Director (Technical) as per Ext.P8 proceedings dated 30.12.2000. Thereafter he was given financial upgradation to the scale of pay of Assistant Director (Technical) as per Ext.P7 order dated 17.11.2003. The petitioner had, while he was in service, submitted Ext.P9 representation dated 10.2.2006 to the Director, Export Inspection Council of India, New Delhi, contending that he is entitled to the first financial upgradation in the scale of pay of Rs.8000-275-13500 in August 1999 and the second financial upgradation in the scale of pay of Rs.10000-352-15200 in January 2002. That request was rejected by the Director, Export Inspection Council of India and the decision communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P10 letter dated 3.5.2006. He again represented by submitting Ext.P11 representation dated 29.1.2008. That request too was rejected and the decision communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P12 letter dated 6.8.2008. The instant writ petition was thereupon filed on 22.9.2008, within seven months of the petitioner's retirement from service. 19. He again represented by submitting Ext.P11 representation dated 29.1.2008. That request too was rejected and the decision communicated to the petitioner by Ext.P12 letter dated 6.8.2008. The instant writ petition was thereupon filed on 22.9.2008, within seven months of the petitioner's retirement from service. 19. The Apex Court has in Union of India and Others v. Tarsem Singh [ (2008) 8 SCC 648 ] held that where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. It was held that if the issue relates to payment or re-fixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and the doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In the instant case, the claim made by the petitioner does not affect the rights of others. The grant of financial upgradation does not necessitate the creation of a post for the purpose. The reliefs granted by the learned single Judge would not affect anyone else in service. Such being the situation, we find no reason or justification to deny relief to the petitioner on the ground that it was only after his retirement that he moved this court seeking reliefs in the matter of grant of financial upgradation under Ext.P6 ACP Scheme. 20. The appellants have no case that as the petitioner was promoted to the post of Assistant Director (Technical) on 30.12.2000 as per Ext.P8 order, he is not entitled to the second financial upgradation. In fact, the appellants' case is that the petitioner is entitled only to the second financial upgradation on completion of 24 years of service. In view of the finding that we have already entered, the stand taken by the appellants cannot in our opinion be sustained. On the terms of Ext.P6 ACP Scheme, the petitioner was in our opinion entitled to the second financial upgradation on completion of 24 years of service computed from 02.01.1978 in the scale of pay of Rs.10000-325-15200. In view of the finding that we have already entered, the stand taken by the appellants cannot in our opinion be sustained. On the terms of Ext.P6 ACP Scheme, the petitioner was in our opinion entitled to the second financial upgradation on completion of 24 years of service computed from 02.01.1978 in the scale of pay of Rs.10000-325-15200. The learned single Judge was therefore, in our opinion, perfectly justified in allowing the writ petition and directing the appellants to take steps to grant financial upgradation on completion of 12 years and 24 years of service from the respective due dates namely 12 years computed from 02.01.1978 and 24 years computed from 02.01.1978. We accordingly hold that there is no merit in the instant writ appeal. The writ appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellants shall comply with the directions issued by the learned single Judge and disburse the monetary benefits expeditiously and in any event, within three months from today. The parties shall bear their respective costs.