JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under Articles 14 & 16 of the Constitution of India is filed with following prayer(s):- 6 (A) quash and set aside the decision dated 4.4.2015, Annexure-A to the petition and direct the respondent authorities to grant second higher grade scale of Rs. 8,000-14,050 to the petitioner from his due date with all consequential benefits including arrears and consequential pay and pension fixation and (AA) quash and set aside the order dated 14.03.2016, Annexure-AA to the petition, and (B) further be pleased to direct the respondent Board to pay interest on the delayed payment on amount flowing from prayer clause, at the rate which the Hon’ble Court may consider, as just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, and (C) award the cost of this petition, and…” 2. It is the case where petitioner is claiming a 2nd higher grade scale on the principle of having worked for 9 years in one scale, and therefore, challenging the decision dated 04.04.2015 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Such decision being taken against the order of this court too. 3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that upon completion of another fifteen years of service after receiving first higher grade scale, an employee is entitled to receive second higher grade scale as per the policy of the State Government, as envisaged in Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994, as modified vide Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007. 4. It is submitted that since the petitioner had also rendered another 15 years of service after receipt of first higher grade scale, he became entitled for benefit of second higher grade scale, which would be of the cadre of Accounts Officer, Class-I, however, the authorities had not initiated any action for grant of second higher grade scale. 4.1 Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that considering the case of the petitioner, on 12.03.2010, proposal was sent from the Office of the Director of Accounts and Treasuries to the Finance Department for grant of second higher grade scale to the petitioner w.e.f. 17.02.2002 in view of completion of another 15 years of service after receipt of first higher grade scale. 4.2 Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, as there was no response to the proposal sent by the Respondent No. 2, the petitioner had personally approached the authorities of the State Government time and again and had also made representation in that regard. 4.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner received one communication dated 02.06.2014 from the Finance Department, whereby it was intimated to the petitioner that cases prior to resolution dated 02.07.2007 are to be decided pursuant to Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 and as provided in para 3(2) of said resolution, person should not have been promoted more than two times, and therefore, the case of the petitioner is under consideration of the State Government, as the petitioner got three promotion and one higher grade scale. 4.4 Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that from the orders given to the petitioner under RTI, it clearly appears that on 16.03.2009, proposal for grant of second higher grade scale to one Shri I.H.Bandhara was sent to the Finance Department with checklist. On 05.06.2009, Respondent No.1 passed an order granting second higher grade scale of Rs.8000-14050 to few persons including persons junior to the petitioner, who had also received three promotion and one higher grade scale. 4.5 Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that there are many other persons junior to the petitioner are granted second higher grade scale, but since petitioner does not have service details of all as same is not being provided by the authorities even under the Right to Information Act, same is not provided here. But from the proposal forwarded by Respondent No.2 in case of Shri Bandhara, it can be seen that he was appointed after petitioner in the year 1972 and he was promoted thrice and also receiving first higher grade scale and he has been granted second higher grade scale. Over and above, the case of Shri Bandhara, there are many other persons junior to the petitioner are granted second higher grade scale under similar set of circumstances and the petitioner is being discriminated on the ground of having received three promotions and one higher grade scale. Over and above, the case of Shri Bandhara, there are many other persons junior to the petitioner are granted second higher grade scale under similar set of circumstances and the petitioner is being discriminated on the ground of having received three promotions and one higher grade scale. 4.6 Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is being discriminated in the matter of grant of second higher grade scale, as junior to the petitioner with similar service history, is granted benefit of second higher grade scale, which is violative of Art. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court by way of one petition being Special Civil Application No. 18708 of 2014. This Court, after hearing arguments, directed the concerned authority to consider the case of the petitioner within two months vide order dated 22.01.2015. 5. Learned AGP submits that at the very outset, the petitioner has made the delay in approaching to this Court. However, the petitioner had retired in the year 2004 till the year 2009 i.e. till 5 years the petitioner had remained silent, and thereafter, he had made a representation, as such there is a delay of 5 years in approaching to this Court and challenging the order. 5.1 Learned AGP submits that the petitioner had already received promotion after getting first higher pay scale on 01.11.1992, the petitioner was granted to first higher pay grade scale with effect on 17.08.1987, and thereafter on 14.09.1994, the petitioner was promoted on the post of Accountant as per the policy of the State Government i.e. G.R. dated 02.07.2007. It is submitted that that, as it is provided under the Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007 specifically in Clause-4(B). The copy of the G.R is annexed here in the memorandum of the petition at Page no 27. The relevant portion of the G.R Clause 4(B) is at Page no. 31. By emphasizing the Sub clause (B) of Clause-4 of the Government Resolution dated 02.07.2007, it is submitted that as per the clear language of the Government Resolution, the petitioner is not entitled for the benefit of the second higher pay grade scale, as the petitioner had already received first higher pay grade scale, and thereafter, he had been granted promotion to the other posts. 5.2 Learned AGP submits that there is no stagnation in the service record of the petitioner, where there was a stagnation granted by the Government in first higher pay scale, but nearly completing 15 years of service after receiving first higher pay scale will not in any manner entitled the petitioner to claim the benefit of the second higher pay grade scale ignoring the promotion which has been received by the petitioner. The petitioner had not provided details to whom such benefits are been given. 6. Having heard learned advocates for the parties and having perused the documents on record, it transpires that the petitioner came to be appointed as Sub Auditor, Group III, Local Fund Accounts, at Bharuch on 13.02.1968. Thereafter, the petitioner came to be promoted as Deputy Accountant in Group II in the pay scale of Rupees 425-800. He got promoted on 15.04.1975. Thereafter, the petitioner promoted as accountant as group I in the pay scale of Rupees 500- 900 on 17.08.1978. The petitioner remained in the post of Accountant for the period of 9 years as per the policy of State Government. The petitioner was granted the benefit of first higher grade pay scale of Rs.2000- 3500 with effect from 17.08.1987, which came to be revised as Rs. 6500-10,500 with effect from 01.01.1996. After receiving the first higher pay grade scale, the petitioner was once again was granted promotion to the post of Accountant Officer, Class II officer on 14.9.1994. The petitioner got promoted to the post of Account Officer. It is also clarified that the higher pay-scale, which was granted to the petitioner was of Rs.6500-10,500 on the same pay-scale the petitioner got promoted. Thereafter, the petitioner came to be superannuated on 31.03.2004. The petitioner made first time request to the Deponent Office to grant him second higher pay-grade scale on 10.12.2009 by making a representation. The representation made by the petitioner to the Authority through proper channel was considered and forwarded to the Finance Department for considering the case of a petitioner for granting the benefit of second higher pay grade scale. 7. This Court, vide order dated 22.01.2015, passed in Special Civil Application No. 18708 of 2014 directed the State Government to take appropriate decision. 7. This Court, vide order dated 22.01.2015, passed in Special Civil Application No. 18708 of 2014 directed the State Government to take appropriate decision. The State Government considered the case of the petitioner from all possibilities and by the order dated 04.04.2015 took a decision rejecting the claim of the petitioner by taking into consideration the Government policy dated 02.07.2007. 8. The whole object of granting a higher pay grade scale that is to provide relief to such employees who have stagnated on account of non availablity of the promotional avenues, in the present case, the petitioner had been granted the benefit and also been promoted after getting first higher pay grade scale that is on 14.09.1994, he was promoted to the post of Account Officer. Therefore, the petitioner is also not entitled for the second higher pay grade scale. At this juncture, it would be equally important to refer to the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994. In the preamble itself, it is stated that those employees who have received first higher pay grade scale, and thereafter, received a promotion shall not be entitle for further benefits of second higher pay grade scale. Moreover, as per the scheme of higher pay scale in the Government Resolution dated 16.08.1994 specifically under Clause 3(2), it has been mentioned that those, who have received two promotion, shall not be entitled for the further benefit of higher pay scale. From the further reading of the Government Resolution, it is crystal clear that the petitioner is not entitled for the prayers regarding second higher pay grade scale. The petitioner has been granted the first higher pay grade scale with effect from 17.08.1997 by the order dated 01.11.1992. The petitioner had received promotion after receiving the first higher pay grade scale on 14.09.1994. The petitioner had received the promotion after receiving the first higher pay grade scale, which stand is taken by the State Government relying upon the G.R. dated 16.08.1994. 9. A very relevant aspect is delay, the petitioner was in accounts, he retired in 2004, he agitated this issue in the year 2009 and claiming entitlement of second higher grade w.e.f. 2000 i.e. 15 years after first higher grade in Class-II, which he received on 17.08.1987. The present petition is filed in the year 2015. 9. A very relevant aspect is delay, the petitioner was in accounts, he retired in 2004, he agitated this issue in the year 2009 and claiming entitlement of second higher grade w.e.f. 2000 i.e. 15 years after first higher grade in Class-II, which he received on 17.08.1987. The present petition is filed in the year 2015. Therefore, to the court, it appears that the petitioner deliberately waited for this many years and let the benefits accumulate to take a shape of bounty and then make a claim, as prayed for towards consequential benefits including arrears and pay of fixation and also pray for interest on delayed payment. Therefore, the conduct of the petitioner in delaying in claim itself is sufficient to disentitle the petitioner to claim. This is held as such over and above the view of the Court that the petitioner, in any case, is not entitled to such a claim. 10. The parity claimed with the case of other employees. It is pertinent to maintain that such claim is made without any specific reference to several employees. Though it is claimed several other and juniors have received the benefits, the petitioner has given instance of only one Shri I.H.Bhandara. In the opinion of the Court, the case of Shri Bhandara cannot be equated. The reasons for which Shri Bhandara is given the benefit are clearly mentioned in the proposal of Deputy Director dated 16.03.2005, where Mr. Bandara has received three promotions and one first higher pay scale. In respect of which, the first higher pay-scale and one pay-scale as Group-1 Accountant and as he is completing 24 consecutive years in the same cadre, he is eligible for second higher pay-scale with effect from 18.02.2005. Departmental examination for promotion/higher pay scale from Class-2 to Class-1(Ju.Duty) is not scheduled. Mr. Bandhara cleared the Hindi examination with Hindi subject. A note about this has been made in his service book. Also, as per provision (1) of the resolution dated 01.10.2007 of the General Administration Department, CCC+ examination is not required to be held, if the second higher pay-scale is available on 18.02.2005.Such being not the case of the petitioner. The Court does not deems it fit to treat the case of Shri Bhandara for deciding entitlement of the petitioner, which has to be decided in the facts of the petitioner himself. The Court does not deems it fit to treat the case of Shri Bhandara for deciding entitlement of the petitioner, which has to be decided in the facts of the petitioner himself. Even if the State has committed mistake in case of Mr.Bhandara, the petitioner may not get advantage of it. This Chronology of events of service record of the petitioner does not show anywhere that the petitioner has stagnated in his service career. Therefore, making a claim itself is against the very spirit of the policy to grant higher grade scale to the employees, who have stagnated on account of no scope for promotion or lacks of promotional avenues. 11. In view of the aforesaid, no case is made out by the petitioner to claim the relief, as prayed for and hence, the present petition deserves to be and is hereby stands dismissed. Rule is discharged.