1. This appeal has been preferred against the order dated 17.02.2005 passed by the learned Single Judge allowing the writ petition filed by the petitioner through the legal representatives after his demise. The deceased petitioner had filed a writ petition raising a grievance that although he had been promoted as 'Tailor' in the Department of Medical & Health, the pay scale which was allowed to him was lower than the Tailors who were discharging the duties in the Jail Department. The learned Single Judge was pleased to accept the contention of the deceased petitioner and was pleased to hold that the Tailors who were discharing duties in the Department of Medical & Health should be treated on par with the Tailors working in the Jail Department and hence uniform payscale should be allowed to the Tailors in both the Departments. However, the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the pay scale given to the Tailors in the Department of Jail as also the arrears by way of difference of pay from the date of filing of the petition by the deceased petitioner.

2. It is thus obvious that although the deceased-petitioner has substantially succeeded before the learned Single Judge as the pay scale on par with the Tailors in the Department of Jail has been allowed to him, his legal representatives are aggrieved of the fact that the said pay scale should have been allowed from the date of his promotion and not from the date of tiling of the writ petition. The counsel for the appellant has contended that the plea of the deceased petitioner having been accepted by the learned Single Judge to the effect that he was entitled to claim the pay scale of a Tailor on par with the Tailors who were functioning in the Department of jail, the petitioner should have been allowed the said pay scale right from the date of his promotion and not merely from the date of filing of the writ petition.

3. Deliberating over the submission advanced in support of the case of the deceased-petitioner/appellant, we have noted that although the deceased- petitioner had been held entitled to the pay scale of a Tailor on par with the Tailors discharging duties in the Department of Medical & Health, he cannot be allowed to claim the arrears from the date of his promotion, for the deceased-petitioner, in spite of being aware of the fact that he could claim the pay scale on par with the Tailors discharging duties in the Department of Jail, continued to work on the pay scale available to the Tailors in the Department of Medical & Health. Thus, he acquiesced with the pay scale that was being allowed to him.

4. It has been laid down in catena of decision that although there is no prescribed period of limitation for moving a writ petition, nevertheless the affected party has to move the Court of Law for vindication of his claim and right at the earliest.

5. Although the petitioner was promoted on the post of Tailor in the year 1977, yet he filed a writ petition claiming the higher scale on par with the Tailors of the Department of Jail only in the year 1993. No reason has been assigned as to why he did not raise this plea in the year 1977 itself. Today if this plea is allowed that he should have been granted the scale on par with the Tailors in the Department of Medical & Health right from the date of his promotion which is the year 1977, obvious discrimination would result from this order as other similarly situated persons would be deprived of this benefit merely because they had not moved the Court of Law. Since the deceased petitioner had raised this question by filing a writ in the year 1993, we are of the view that the learned Single Judge is justified in allowing the pay scale to the deceased-petitioner only from the year in which he had filed a writ petition which is 1993. The arrears of pay scale from 1977 to 1993 is not justified in our view as the deceased-petitioner had not moved the Court promptly within a reasonable period of time of his promotion. Hence, th