JUDGMENT : HRISHIKESH ROY, J. 1. The petitioner is unrepresented when the case is called. He served as Assistant Grade-III (D) in the Food Corporation of India (FCI) and his grievance relate to the order dated 16.01.1998 (Annexure-2), whereby, the penalty of censure was imposed by the Disciplinary Authority, in exercise of powers conferred under Regulation 54 read with Regulation 60 of the FCI (Staff) Regulation, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as the “FCI Regulation”). The aggrieved employee did not initially challenge the penalty nor he had approached the appellate authority. Instead he has filed this writ petition 12 years after he was penalized. 2. In the absence of the petitioner's lawyer, Mr. P.K Roy, the learned standing counsel for the FCI points out that the censure penalty is challenged in the context of the denial of additional increment available for those employees with clean service record. The petitioner's name was initially short listed conditionally for grant of the additional increment on 12.08.1999, but because of the censure order against him, in the final list prepared on 07.12.2007 (Annexure-5), the petitioner's name was excluded, since he faced disciplinary action. 3. The additional increment made available to AG-III(D) employees of the FCI, under the Office Order dated 12.08.1999 is subject to fulfillment of the 7 conditions stipulated in the Office Order dated 12.08.1999 In the present case, the Condition Nos. 2 and 3 being relevant, are extracted herein below, for ready reference:— “………………………… (2) There should be no vigilance case pending against the official or the official should not be undergoing any tenure of penalty at the time he/she was eligible for grant of stagnation increment which could not be granted to him/her for administrative reasons. (3) No vigilance case is pending or contemplated on the date the effect of this increment is released by the Sr. Regional Manager or by the competent authority empowered to do so. ………………………” 4. As can be seen from the records, the petitioner was charge-sheeted under Regulation 60 of the FCI Regulation on 29.09.1995 and the Disciplinary Authority imposed the penalty of censure against the delinquent on 16.01.1998 It is for this reason, the additional increment granted to the petitioner on 12.08.1999 was found to be unmerited and accordingly in the final list prepared on 07.12.2007, the petitioner's name was excluded as he suffered disciplinary action in the meantime. 5. 5. The sanctioning of additional increment is subject to fulfillment of conditions stipulated in the Office Order dated 12.08.1999 and the petitioner with his censure punishment does not satisfy the key condition of clean service record for getting the additional benefit. It is also relevant to note that when the censure order was issued on 16.01.1998, the delinquent never objected to the penalty nor he approached the appellate authority against the order passed by the Sr. Regional Manager of the FCI. In such circumstances, I am of the considered view that this belated challenge and that too without approaching the appellate authority, should not be entertained. 6. The petitioner has already reached the superannuation age and he is unrepresented in Court. Therefore, having noted the relevant facts with the assistance of the FCI lawyer, the case is dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution, rather than on merit.