JUDGMENT : 1. By way of present petition, under Articles 14, 16 and 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed, inter alia, that:- "7(A) That Your Lordships be pleased to issue an order, direction and / or writ in the nature of mandamus and / or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner and grant the benefit of higher grade w.e.f. 26.12.2003 the date on which the petitioner completed nine years of service for higher grade; (B) Be further pleased to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 15.10.2010 marked ANN.F in so far as the said order grant the benefit from 20.5.2009 and be further pleased to declare and hold that the petitioner is entitled for the higher grade w.e.f. 26.12.2003; (C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, Your Lordships be further pleased to direct the respondent to reconsider the case of the petitioner as has been considered in other case of Shri P.A. Rajani; (D) Any other and such further relief as the Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the interest of justice together with costs." 2. The brief facts giving rise to present petition are that the petitioner was working with the respondent No.2, as 'Khalasi' and was promoted from the post of 'Khalasi' to the post of 'Time Keeper' vide order dated 20-12-1994 in the office of respondent No.2. The petitioner was promoted as 'Time Keeper' in the pay scale of Rs. 950-20- 1150-EB-1500 (Revised to Rs.3050-75-3950-80-4590). The petitioner was entitled for higher grade on completion of 9 years of service and for that purpose the pre-service examination was required to be passed. The petitioner's name was also included for appearing in the pre-service examination. However, the respondent no.2, addressed a letter to Chief Administrative Officer that the pre-service examination is not compulsory in the case of the petitioner and that the petitioner was not relieved to appear in the examination. However, the petitioner continued to make representation and without prejudice to the rights and contention, the petitioner appeared in the pre-service examination and passed the same in May, 2009. The petitioner has received a letter dated 28-7-06 denying to grant benefit of higher grade on the ground that the petitioner has not passed pre-service examination. However, the petitioner continued to make representation and without prejudice to the rights and contention, the petitioner appeared in the pre-service examination and passed the same in May, 2009. The petitioner has received a letter dated 28-7-06 denying to grant benefit of higher grade on the ground that the petitioner has not passed pre-service examination. However, when the petitioner passed the examination in May, 2009, an order dated 15-10-2010 came to be issued by the Port Officer, granting the benefit of higher grade and the said benefit of higher grade was granted w.e.f. 20-5-2009. The petitioner's salary was fixed on completion of nine years of service in the scale of Rs.4000-100-6000 and his initial pay was fixed at Rs.4400/- w.e.f. 20-5-2009. 3. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of not granting first higher grade on completion of 9 years of service in 2003, the petitioner has filed present petition and prayed for above mentioned relief. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in 1995, the petitioner was working under the office of respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 has written a letter to respondent No. 2 to send the petitioner for advance training programme for the purpose of getting higher grade and to appear in the examination, which is compulsory for getting the higher grade and promotion. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that vide letter dated 20.3.1995, the respondent No. 2 informed the respondent No.1 that since the petitioner was working as a 'Time Keeper' he was not required to attend the training programme or the examination, which was going to be held. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted even thereafter, on four occasions, the name of present petitioner was not recommended by respondent No. 2 to respondent No.1 and therefore, the petitioner could not appear in the examination and the training programme and only in 2008 his name was recommended and in 2009 he was considered for the higher grade and promotion and therefore, petitioner has sustained monitory loss from 2003 to 2009 for six years. 4.1 Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred and relied upon the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 324 of 2010 and allied matter dated 18.2.2010 more particularly paragraph No. 7, which reads as under:- "7. 4.1 Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred and relied upon the order passed by the coordinate bench of this Court in Special Civil Application No. 324 of 2010 and allied matter dated 18.2.2010 more particularly paragraph No. 7, which reads as under:- "7. For the above reasons, the petitions are allowed, the impugned orders modifying the higher grade scale to the petitioners and for effecting recovery are set aside and the earlier orders by which the petitioners were granted the first higher grade scales after completion of 9 years in service are restored with direction to grant them the consequent benefits. Monetary benefits due to the petitioner under this order shall be paid to the petitioners within three months from today." 4.2 In view of the above, learned Counsel for the petitioner urges before this Court that present petition may be allowed and the relief which is prayed for in present petition by the petitioner, may be granted. 5. As against the same, Ms. Raval, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the name of petitioner was never recommended by the office of respondent No.2 because of some internal dispute with the present petitioner and thereafter, also on all four occasions, the name of the petitioner was never forwarded till 2008 by the office of respondent No.2 and only in 2008, his name was forwarded and recommended for the training programme and the examination which was going to be held in 2008. Ms. Raval, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner had cleared the said examination in the first attempt and therefore, his case for higher grade was considered in 2009. Ms. Raval, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that the petitioner has never raised any grievance before the office of the respondent, prior to clear the examination in 2009. Ms. Raval, learned Counsel for the respondent has submitted that since the petitioner has not raised any grievance and therefore, he is not entitled to get the benefits from the date, which he has prayed for. 5.1. Ms. Raval, learned Counsel for the respondent has further submitted that since the petitioner is entitled to get benefit only after clearing the examination and upto 2009, he has not cleared examination therefore, his case was not considered by the respondent for benefit of higher grade. 5.2 Ms. 5.1. Ms. Raval, learned Counsel for the respondent has further submitted that since the petitioner is entitled to get benefit only after clearing the examination and upto 2009, he has not cleared examination therefore, his case was not considered by the respondent for benefit of higher grade. 5.2 Ms. Raval, learned Counsel for the respondent urges before this Court that present petition may not be allowed and the relief prayed for by the petitioner in present petition may not be granted. 6. I have heard Mr. T.R. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Ms. Dharmishta Raval learned Counsel for the respondent and perused the document and material placed on record. 7. It is an admitted fact that the name of the petitioner, at the first instance, was called for by the office of respondent No.1 in 20.3.1995 from the office of respondent No.2 to attend the training programme. Pursuant to which, the office of the respondent No.2 has not forwarded the name of the petitioner and not relived the petitioner to attend the training programme, on the ground that since the petitioner got promotion and at present, he was serving on the post of 'Time Keeper' and therefore, he need not to attend the training programme and not required to clear the examination. It appears that thereafter, on all other occasions, the name of the petitioner was not recommended by the office of the respondent No.2 to respondent No.1. 8. Whatever it may be, the issue involved in present petition is only to the effect that whether the petitioner is entitled to get the benefits, as prayed for in the petition from 2003 or not. 9. It appears that the petitioner has filed present petition for the benefit of higher grade, which he is entitled for from 2003. The said benefit was not granted to the petitioner because of non-recommendation of the name of the petitioner by the local office of respondent No. 1 at Okha for attending the training programme and also to appear in the examination. The name of the petitioner was recommended only in 2008 and the petitioner had cleared his examination in 2008 in first attempt and therefore, he was granted the benefit of higher grade in the year 2009 itself and thereby, the petitioner has suffered monitory loss for six years. 10. The name of the petitioner was recommended only in 2008 and the petitioner had cleared his examination in 2008 in first attempt and therefore, he was granted the benefit of higher grade in the year 2009 itself and thereby, the petitioner has suffered monitory loss for six years. 10. It is required to be noted herein that though the petitioner has received letter on 20.3.1995 from the respondent, but at that point of time, the office of respondent No.2 has not relieved the petitioner to appear in the examination to attend the training programme and thereafter, name of the petitioner was never recommended by the office of respondent No.2 to respondent No.1 for attending the training programme and for appearing in the examination. It is pertinent to note that the said examination is compulsory for getting the higher grade and promotion, as per the circular issued by the respondent. 11. It is also relevant to note herein that the reason best known to the office of respondent No. 2, the name of the petitioner was never recommended on earlier four occasions and therefore, the benefits which were given to the others, were denied to the petitioner. Even, the petitioner has also raised a grievance that in case of similarly situated persons, though they have cleared examination subsequently, their case has been considered prior to the date and from 2003 onwards they have received monitory benefits, though they have not cleared the examination, at the time of getting higher grade benefits. 12. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that the present petition deserves to be considered and requires to be allowed. 13. The respondent is hereby directed to grant the benefit of higher grade to the petitioner and recalculate the same from 26.12.2003 as prayed by the petitioner and pay all the difference along with the gratuity and provident fund. 14. The pension of the petitioner shall also be recalculated and re-fixed on the basis of that difference in the pay, within period of 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of present order. 15. With aforesaid observations, present petition is hereby allowed. Rule is made absolute. Direct service is permitted.