ORDER Per: Justice Anand Pathak 1. The present appeal under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 is preferred by the appellant (writ petitioner) being crestfallen by the order dated 17.1.2025 passed by learned writ Court in Writ Petition No.637 of 2014 whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner has been dismissed on the ground of delay. 2. Learned writ Court observed that petitioner appeared belatedly. 3. Petition was preferred by writ petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before learned writ Court and sought following reliefs:- "(i) That, a direction may kindly be given to the respondents to fix the seniority of petitioner from date of his initial appointment or atleast from the date of his classification i.e. w.e.f.26.02.1995. (ii) Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be given to the petitioner along with costs" 4. It was the submission of writ petitioner before the learned Writ Court that he was initially appointed as Pump Driver on daily wage basis on 25.9.1991 and later on, his post was changed as Timekeeper. Meanwhile, he acquired part time diploma in Civil Engineer. Therefore, by way of litigation, after meandering, he was classified as permanent employee on the post of Timekeeper w.e.f. 26.2.1995. He was seeking seniority from the date of his classification. 5. It appears that the litigation continued till 2013 when his case was decided by Supreme Court vide order dated 17.5.2013 by which, appeal preferred by State Government got dismissed and benefits granted to the writ petitioner by High Court was affirmed. Thereafter, writ petitioner preferred a writ petition for grant of seniority, however, the same was dismissed on the point of delay, therefore, appellant is before this Court. 6. It is the submission of counsel for appellant that the matter was resolved in the year 2013 and immediately thereafter, in 2014, he filed a writ petition. Since petition was pending for last many years, therefore, it appears to the learned writ Court that delay has been caused. However, writ petitioner was continuously fighting for his cause. Although he was classified in 1995, but litigation continued till 2013, therefore, there was no delay. Since petition was pending for last many years, therefore, it appears to the learned writ Court that delay has been caused. However, writ petitioner was continuously fighting for his cause. Although he was classified in 1995, but litigation continued till 2013, therefore, there was no delay. Learned counsel fairly submits that he does not press for the payment of difference of salary and other benefits, however, he seeks notional fixation of seniority at appropriate place from the date of his classification i.e. 26.2.1995. 7. Shri Ankur Mody, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents/State opposed the prayer, however, he fairly submitted that in given fact-situation since writ petitioner was litigating for years together, his case shall be considered in accordance with law. 8. Considering the rival submissions and the innocuous prayer sought by appellant, this appeal is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 17.1.2025 passed by learned Writ Court stands modified to the extent that appellant shall prefer a representation for grant of seniority and appropriate placement in the gradation list on the strength of his date of classification and his services rendered so far and if such representation is preferred, then respondents/authorities shall consider his case for grant of notional seniority and shall decide the same within a period of two months thereafter. 9. It is made clear that if appellant is found entitled for proper placement in seniority list, then his name be fixed in the gradation list at appropriate place and he shall not be entitled for any difference of back wages. However, post-retiral benefits may ensue in accordance with law. 10. It is made clear that this Court does not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and representation of appellant shall be decided on its own merits. 11. In view of the above, the instant appeal stands disposed of.