JUDGMENT : N. Sailo, J. Heard Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. L.Perme, learned Standing Counsel for the Agriculture Department, representing all the respondents. 2. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 07.04.2025, passed by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 279 of 2024, by which the writ petition has been dismissed on grounds of delay. 3. Mr. D. Soki, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment and order cannot be sustained in view of the fact that continuous wrong has been done to the appellants since they were picked up without their consent from their posts as Agriculture Field Assistant (Junior) and appointed as Assistant Marketing Inspector (AMI) in the year 2004. He submits that there is no promotional avenue for AMI. The learned counsel submits that the appellants were initially appointed as Village Level Workers (VLW) in the year 1988, and the said post has been re-designated as Agriculture Field Assistant (AFA) on 19.05.2000, whereafter, the appellants were appointed as AMI in the year 2004, to be precise, on 15.10.2004. The learned counsel submits that the appellants have not earned any promotion till date since there is no promotional avenue from the post of AMI. He submits that the appellants are now on the verge of retirement and, therefore, they should be considered for further promotion as Agriculture Field Assistant (Senior) in view of the fact that the posts of AFA (Jr.) and AMI are in the same grade pay, which can be seen from the information furnished to the appellants by the Director of Agriculture on their RTI application. The learned counsel submits that the appellants are not claiming any seniority, but only the pay benefits in the next promotional post of AFA (Sr.). The learned counsel submits that delay cannot be the ground to refuse the prayer of the appellants when continuous wrong has been committed on them. 4. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the appellants has relied upon the following authorities: (i) Mohammad Shujat Ali & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1975) 3 SCC 76 ; (ii) H. L. Trehan & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1989) 1 SCC 764 ; (iii) Balco Captive Power Plant Mazdoor Sangh & Anr. V. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1975) 3 SCC 76 ; (ii) H. L. Trehan & Ors. V. Union of India & Ors., reported in (1989) 1 SCC 764 ; (iii) Balco Captive Power Plant Mazdoor Sangh & Anr. V. National Thermal Power Corporation & Ors., reported in (2007) 14 SCC 234; and (iv) order dated 04.12.2024, passed by a three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 13806 of 2024 (Ram Autar Singh Yadav V. the State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.). 5. Mr. L. Perme, learned Standing Counsel for the Agriculture Department, on the other hand, submits that the writ petition filed by the writ appellants has rightly been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on grounds of delay, in view of the fact that the cause of action arose, if any, way back in the year 2004. The appellants, as writ petitioners approached this Court only in the year 2024, after 20 years. He also submits that the appellants cannot be given any relief at this stage in view of the fact that third-party rights will be affected, considering the fact that they have claimed promotion to the post of AFA (Sr.), which is the promotional post for AFA (Jr.) as per the recruitment rules. The learned Standing Counsel submits that he relies upon the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents in response to the grounds taken by the writ appellants in this appeal. He, thus, submits that since the appeal has no merit, the same should be dismissed. 6. We have heard the submissions made by the learned counsel for the rival parties and have perused the materials available on the record. 7. The case of the appellants is that they were initially appointed as Village Level Workers in the year 1988, and thereafter, in the year 2000, the post was re-designated as AFA (Jr.). Subsequently, the appellants were appointed as AMI in the year 2004. There is no dispute to the fact that there is no promotional post for AMI, since the recruitment rules to that effect has not been framed. Although the posts of Marketing Inspector as well as Statistical Inspector have their recruitment rules, but the post of Assistant Marketing Inspector is not a feeder post for promotion to the post of Marketing Inspector. Although the posts of Marketing Inspector as well as Statistical Inspector have their recruitment rules, but the post of Assistant Marketing Inspector is not a feeder post for promotion to the post of Marketing Inspector. The claim of the appellants is that since the post of AMI is equivalent to the post of AFA (Jr.), they should be considered as such and promoted to the post of AFA (Sr.). It is the further contention of the appellants that by making such a claim, they do not claim their seniority, but only financial benefit in the higher pay scale of AFA (Sr.). 8. It may be seen that the pay scale of AFA (Sr.) is equivalent to the pay of AMI, which can be seen from the order dated 15.10.2004 (page 45 of the writ petition) and the order dated 19.05.2000 (page 52 of the writ petition). Both the posts are in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000/- per month. It is, however, submitted at the Bar that the pay scale of AFA (Sr.) has been enhanced in the year 2016. According to the appellants, some of their counterparts who are working in the East Siang District at Pasighat are getting the enhanced pay given to the AFA (Sr.), although they are also working as AMI. It may, however, be seen that the appellants have not made any prayer in this regard in their writ petition. All that has been prayed for is the quashing of the impugned order dated 15.10.2004, by which they have been appointed as AMI in the pay scale of Rs. 4000-100-6000/- per month. 9. The appellants have further prayed that they should be promoted to the post of AFA (Sr.) from the date their immediate juniors were promoted and also to grant them all consequential benefits of such promotion. It may be seen that their appointment to the post of AMI was on 15.10.2004 and in the absence of any recruitment rules by which AMI can be promoted to the post of AFA (Sr.), such prayer at this stage is only found to be belated. We, therefore, do not find any reason to disagree with the learned Single Judge, insofar as the delay in claiming such relief is concerned. We, therefore, do not find any reason to disagree with the learned Single Judge, insofar as the delay in claiming such relief is concerned. However, in respect of the claim of the appellants that their counterparts in other districts are getting higher pay as AFA (Sr.), we are of the view that there is no bar for the appellants to approach the authorities concerned with such grievance, since no specific prayer was made in their writ petition. Therefore, in the event such an approach is made by the appellants, the respondent authorities shall look into the matter and pass appropriate order(s) as may be required. On the other hand, if there has been a mistake in granting such higher scale to similarly situated persons in the post of AMI, the respondent authorities shall convey the same to the appellants and also take further steps as may be found necessary in this regard. 10. We have also perused the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellants and found them to be not applicable in the present case, in the given facts and circumstances. 11. With the above observation and direction, the writ appeal is disposed.