The court emphasized the importance of timely approach to the court and held that delay and laches can disqualify a petitioner from seeking reliefs under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)

1. The instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking the following reliefs:

" i. ISSUE the WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ and/or order or direction to set aside/quash the impugned office order dt.19.11.2017 passed by the respondent; and

ii. ISSUE the WRIT OF MANDAMUS or any other appropriate writ and/or order or direction against the respondent for granting one advance incentive in favor of the petitioner and other consequential benefits arising therefrom w.e.f 01.01.2006 to the petitioner; and

iii. PASS any other and further order (s) which may be deemed to be just, fit & proper in favor of the Petitioners in the light of the facts & Circumstances of the case."

2. The brief facts leading to filing of the instant petition have been recapitulated herein below:

a) The petitioner had worked as a Producer, EPMC with the respondent No. 1 from 6th March 2001 till his placement in selection grade on 2nd July 2007. The petitioner completed his degree of M.Phil. while in service in the year 2004.

b) The Ministry of Human Resource Development issued a Scheme in 2008 whereby, it sanctioned the grant of advanced increment for completion of M.Phil. degree while being in service. The said Scheme is titled as `Revision of pay of teachers and equivalent cadres in universities and colleges following the revision of pay scales of the Central Government employees on the recommendations of the Sixth Central Pay Commission applicable to teachers and other equivalent cadres of Library and Physical Education in all the Central Universities and Colleges'. (hereinafter "Scheme, 2008").

c) On 12th November 2008, the respondent replied to the petitioner's representation dated 13th October 2008, stating that there is no provision for grant of advanced increment for completion of M.Phil. degree while being in service under the Scheme of 5th Central Pay Commission (hereinafter "CPC").

d) Thereafter, the petitioner continued to make representations dated 26th July 2011, and 28th August 2015, which were rejected vide respondent's reply dated 26th June 2015, and 31st October 2016, respectively.

e) Another representation dated 23rd November 2016, was also made to the respondent for grant of one advance incentive but the respondent rejected it vide impugned office order/reply dated 19th November 2017. Henceforth, the petitioner being aggrieved by the impugned office order/reply dated 19th November 2017, filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

3. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that Clause (viii) of Para 7 of the Scheme dated 31st December 2008, qua incentives for Ph.D./M.Phil. and for other higher qualification, lays down the provisions regarding grant of one advance incentive on completing M.Phil. degree while in service.

4. It is submitted that by virtue of Para 7 clause (viii), the petitioner, who has acquired M. Phil. degree in 2004, while in service is eligible under the Scheme, 2008. Moreover, the petitioner made several representations dated 13th October 2008, 26th July 2011, and 28th August 2015, which were outrightly rejected vide a reply dated 12th November 2008, 26th June 2015, and 31st October 2016, respectively. Another representation dated 23rd November 2016, was also made to the respondent for the grant of one advance incentive but the respondent rejected it vide another impugned office order/reply dated 19th November 2017.

5. It is submitted that the impugned office order is arbitrary as the respondent has not rendered valid and legally justified reasons for rejecting the petitioner's representations.

6. It is submitted that by misconstruing the said Scheme, 2008, the respondent is making the qualified-unqualified and equal-unequal with their counterparts working in same department by raising the differences in pay. The Scheme, 2008 does not debar the