ORDER : I.A. No.6146 of 2015 : 1. Interlocutory application has been filed seeking therein relief of this Court to allow the petitioner to challenge the order dated 15.06.2009 as contained in Annexure-3, since according to the petitioner, the aforesaid order has been annexed to the writ petition but the prayer to that effect for quashing of the aforesaid order has not been made, therefore, the instant interlocutory application has been filed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if the prayer offered in the interlocutory application would not be allowed, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury because the order by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected, which is the main grievance of the petitioner, but due to inadvertent and bona fide mistake, prayer to that effect for quashing of the aforesaid order has not been made. 3. Mr. Sunil Singh, learned AC to SC (Mines) submits that the interlocutory application may be allowed. He has made this submission in order to effect the multiplicity of the proceeding and deciding the issue on merits so that the petitioner may not be prejudiced. 4. After going through the submissions advanced and having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the reasons assigned in the interlocutory application and considering the fact that the petitioner is aggrieved with the reasoned order dated 15.06.2009 which has been passed in terms of an order passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1829 of 2003, but due to mistake, prayer to that effect for quashing has not been made, therefore, if the instant interlocutory application would not be allowed, the petitioner will suffer irreparable loss and injury, hence, the interlocutory application is allowed and the same be treated to be the part of the writ petition. W.P.(S) No.190 of 2015 : 5. The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing of the order dated 15.06.2009 whereby and whereunder the petitioner has been denied with the benefit of junior/senior selection grade and hence approached to this Court vide W.P.(S) No.1829 of 2003 wherein the co-ordinate Bench of this Court had directed the concerned competent authority to take decision, in turn thereof, a decision has been taken on 15.06.2009 whereby and whereunder the claim of the petitioner had been rejected, which is impugned in this writ petition. 6. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the aforesaid order has submitted that several juniors to the petitioner have been given the aforesaid benefit, the petitioner who ought to have granted the aforesaid consequential benefit, but reason best known to the authority, the same has not been paid. According to him, the aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been considered in the impugned order. 7. Mr. Sunil Singh, learned AC to SC (Mines) while refuting the arguments advanced on behalf of the petitioner, has defended the impugned decision on the ground that before 31.12.1995, if a candidate has not passed the departmental examination, the benefit of upgradation by virtue of junior/senior selection grade cannot be granted. He has further submitted by referring to circular with Government Resolution No.660 dated 28.02.1999 whereby and whereunder the benefit to be granted under the time bound promotion scheme or the junior/senior selection grade has been rescinded on or after 31.12.1995 with the stipulation that there cannot be any recovery of the monetary benefit, therefore, it has been submitted that since the claim under which the petitioner is claiming the benefit of junior/senior selection grade, is no more in existence and hence, it cannot be said to be entitled to get the benefit. 8. He further submits that the petitioner can be said to be entitle under scheme so now if exists but after its non-existence, he cannot claim it. Therefore, he submits that the authority after taking into consideration these factual aspects has passed the reasoned order, hence the same needs no interference. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after appreciating their arguments and on going through the impugned order dated 15.06.2009, this Court has found that the petitioner being aggrieved with the non-extension of the benefit of junior/senior selection grade, while in service has approached this Court by way of filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1829 of 2003 wherein, a direction has been passed to take a decision with respect to the claim of the petitioner and in turn thereof, a decision had been taken by the authority by passing the order dated 15.06.2009 by which the claim of the petitioner is not found to be tenable, therefore, it has been rejected, which is impugned in this writ petition. 10. 10. It is not in dispute that the upgradation in pay scale is to be given on the basis of the provision of scheme and so long it is in existence, one or the other employee has got the right to claim. 11. It is not in dispute that the benefit of time bound promotion or junior/senior selection grade had been decided to be given by virtue of the recommendation of 4th Pay Revision Committee but after the recommendation of 5th Pay Revision Committee, when the concept of Assured Career Progression Scheme had been introduced, the competent authority has taken decision by issuing a resolution being Circular No.660 dated 28.02.1999 wherein it has been decided that the benefit of time bound promotion or junior/senior selection grade would stand cancelled and the employee will not get on or after 31.05.1995. 12. The petitioner while in service has approached to this Court in the year 2003 by filing a writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1829 of 2003, therefore, even on the date of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner cannot claim the benefit of junior/senior selection grade in view of the Resolution No.660 dated 28.02.1999. 13. The petitioner claims parity with the other employees but the question is that when the scheme itself is no more in existence, there is no question of claiming parity, it is for the reason that the financial upgradation is to be given on the basis of provision of scheme. 14. The authority while passing the order, although, has not referred to the Resolution No.660 dated 28.02.1999 but reference of the cut off date i.e., 31.12.1995 has been made and the said cut off date was mentioned in the Resolution No.660 dated 28.02.1999. 15. In view thereof, the petitioner cannot be said to be entitled to get the benefit of junior/senior selection grade in the light of the reason stated hereinabove. Accordingly, this Court is of the view that the authority has not committed any error in passing the reasoned order, hence, the writ petition lacks merits, and is hereby, dismissed. 16. I.A. No.6146 also stands disposed of.