JUDGMENT 1. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that by order dated 20.8.2014, the petitioner was ordered to be granted regular pay scale from the date of his appointment, however, it was ordered that the petitioner would not be entitled to arrears. Thereafter, though the petitioner has been fixed in the regular pay scale, the benefits of ACP have not been granted to the petitioner from the date of his initial appointment. 2. Submissions have been made that the petitioner was granted the regular pay scale based on the decree passed by the civil court in favour of similarly situated candidates, though they have been granted arrears of pay, the petitioner has not been accorded the said arrears and further the action of the respondents in not according benefit of ACP from the date of initial appointment, is also not justified. 3. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the material available on record. 4. The petitioner for payment of arrears is claiming parity with one Manoj Kumar Sharma, who by order dated 3.1.2014 (Annex.3) was granted the arrears of pay as well. 5. A perusal of the order dated 3.1.2014 (Annex.3) indicates that the trial court in the suit filed by said Manoj Kumar Sharma had specifically decreed the suit entitling him to receive arrears of pay from the date of his first appointment alongwith regular pay scale. However, the petitioner did not file any similar suit and there was no decree in his favour. 6. The respondents passed the order dated 20.8.2014 (Annex.1) noticing that certain employees, similarly situated, had filed suits, wherein, they have been accorded benefit of regular pay scale from the date of their initial appointment and, therefore, similar benefits be granted to the petitioner. However, it was specifically indicated in the order dated 20.8.2014 that petitioner would be entitled to notional benefits and arrears would not be paid to the petitioner. 7. The order was passed on 20.8.2014, however, the petitioner did not take any steps to question the validity of the said order refusing arrears to the petitioner. Now in the present writ petition, even said aspect alongwith denial of ACP from the date of initial appointment, is sought to be questioned. 8. 7. The order was passed on 20.8.2014, however, the petitioner did not take any steps to question the validity of the said order refusing arrears to the petitioner. Now in the present writ petition, even said aspect alongwith denial of ACP from the date of initial appointment, is sought to be questioned. 8. Merely because the corporation following the decree passed in favour of Manoj Kumar Sharma, had accorded arrears to him, does not entitle the petitioner to receive the same and once the said benefit was refused to the petitioner by Annex.1 and the petitioner did not question the same over 4 years, the challenge laid to the said aspect after 4 years, cannot be countenanced. 9. So far as the claim made by the petitioner seeking grant of ACP from the date of his initial appointment based on the order dated 20.8.2014 is concerned, non-consideration by the respondents on the said aspect and inaction on their part to decide the various representations made by the petitioner, cannot be justified. 10. In view of the above fact situation, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide the representations made by the petitioner regarding grant of ACP from the date of his initial appointment. 11. Needful may be done by the respondents within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is placed before the respondents. 12. The petitioner would be free to file a fresh detailed representation, if so advised.