JUDGMENT : B.B. MANGALMURTI, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the order dated 5th January, 2017 passed in W.P. (S) No.6501 of 2011 by which the prayer of appellant was rejected. In the writ application, prayers of appellant were to fix his pension taking into account his correct length of service and to pay the arrears of first, second and third financial up-gradation under scheme of Assured Carrier Progression and consequently claimed arrears of pension, post retiral benefits with statutory and penal interest. 2. The short fact of the case is that the appellant was appointed and joined as Chain-Man (Janjir Wahak) on 30th July, 1974 and thereafter he was appointed and joined as Junior Account Clerk on 9th March, 1980 in Rural Works Department (previously known as Rural Engineering Organization) at Jamshedpur Division, East Singhbhum. After rendering long length of service, he superannuated on 31st December, 2006 as Accounts Clerk from Jamshedpur Division of Rural Works Department. The respondents settled his pensionary benefits by paying his Government Provident Fund, Group Insurance amount, part of gratuity as per 5th Pay Revision Commission (old scale) and part of leave encashment as per 5th Pay Revision Commission (old scale). The further case is that the respondents have not calculated and paid the correct pension and have not paid arrear and benefits of first, second and third financial up-gradation under Assured Carrier Progression from 9th August, 1999 and 30th July, 2004. The respondents have not paid the arrear of pay revision, gratuity and part of leave encashment as recommended by 6th Pay Revision Commission w.e.f. 1st January, 2006. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that one of his colleague Saryug Prasad, Account Clerk, Works Division, Work Circle, Chaibasa approached this Court in W.P.(S) No.5579 of 2010 claiming the same benefits of financial up-gradation under Assured Carrier Progression scheme and this Court allowed and directed to pay benefits of financial up-gradation, and the case of this appellant stands on similar footing. He further submitted that the respondent no. 8, Accountant General, Jharkhand fixed the pension of the appellant in lower pay scale/salary and fixed the pension and gratuity without considering the service length of appellant from 30th July, 1974 to 31st December, 2006. He further submitted that the respondent no. 8, Accountant General, Jharkhand fixed the pension of the appellant in lower pay scale/salary and fixed the pension and gratuity without considering the service length of appellant from 30th July, 1974 to 31st December, 2006. It is also submitted that respondents have not fixed and paid the benefits of first and second financial up-gradation under Assured Carrier Progression scheme from 9th August, 1999 as well as third financial up-gradation from 30th July 2004 in the pay scale of Rs.5000-Rs.8000, Rs.5500-Rs.9000, Rs. 6500-Rs.10500. The respondents have not taken into account the recommendation of 6th Pay Revision Commission in the new revised pay scale of Rs.9300-Rs.34800/-+ Grade Pay Rs.4200/-. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents controverted the above claim of appellant and submitted that appellant did not pass Departmental examination which is mandatory and as such the case of this appellant is not similar to the case of Saryug Prasad, petitioner in W.P.(S) No.5579 of 2010. He also submitted that the competent authority have not issued any order of waiver from passing the Departmental examination after the appellant attained the age of 50 years nor he approached his controlling officer for issuance of order of waiver while this appellant was in service. Due to these reasons, the appellant is not entitled or eligible for these benefits. The appellant superannuated on 31st December, 2006 and after calculation of all his lawful dues like arrears of pension and other retiral benefits were computed according to the recommendations of 5th and 6th Pay Revision Commission and pension was revised considering his total length of service and accordingly, it were paid to him. Admittedly, the appellant superannuated on 31st December, 2006 and thereafter on 24th May, 2009, he represented for fixation of pay scale as per 6th Pay Revision Commission. His representation was forwarded to District Accounts Officer on 5th June, 2009 who rejected it on the ground that the appellant had not passed the Departmental examination which is mandatory in nature. He referred the case of Veer Kumar Jha & Others Versus R.G., High Court of Jharkhand & Others being W.P.(S) No.2803 of 2003 in which order was passed on 11th December, 2014 holding it a mandatory requirement for being considered for grant of any time bound promotion after crossing the age of 50 years. Therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 5. Therefore, learned Single Judge has rightly dismissed the writ petition. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents and from perusal of the papers attached with this appeal as well as the record of the writ application, it appears that the appellant did not pass the Departmental examination which is mandatory for entitlement of Assured Carrier Progression scheme. It is not available to every employee merely on the completion of few years of service but other conditions are also to be fulfilled. The case of Saryug Prasad is totally different from the case of this appellant as Saryug Prasad had passed the mandatory Departmental examination before he approached the Writ Court, while the appellant had never cleared that examination. Appellant cannot claim parity with an employee who has passed the Departmental examination which was a necessary ingredient for grant of Assured Carrier Progression. Even the appellant did not approach the Department for exemption in this regard. In the case of U.P. Jal Nigam & Another Versus Jaswant Singh & Another reported in (2006) 11 SCC 464 the Hon’ble Apex Court held as under :- 6. “The question of delay and laches has been examined by this court in a series of decisions and laches and delay has been considered to be an important factor in exercise of the discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. When a person who is not vigilant of his rights and acquiesces with this situation, can his writ petition be heard after a couple of years on the ground that same relief should be granted to him as was granted to person similarly situated who was vigilant about his rights and challenged his retirement which was said to be made on attaining the age of 58 years. ………………….” 6. Learned First Court rightly held that after crossing the age of 50 years, no direction can be issued for grant of such Assured Carrier Progression/Modified Assured Carrier Progression and consequential benefit. Similar view has been expressed by the Hon’ble Apex Court also in the case of Secretary, Government (NCT of Delhi) & Others Versus Grade-I DASS Officers’ Association & Others reported in (2014) 13 SCC 296. Therefore, we do not find any reason to interfere in the judgment of the learned First Court. 7. In the result, instant appeal is dismissed.