The court held that the appellant's claim for salary as a Skipper had already been rejected by the authorities, and the appellant had not challenged the rejection, and therefore the court did not find any reason to entertain the appellant's claim for a mandamus.

(Judgment of the Court was made by Mr.K.KUMARESH BABU.,J.) This Intra-Court Appeal had been preferred by the unsuccessful petitioner, wherein his claim for a Mandamus to consider his case for the salary of Skipper and consequential benefits has been negatived by the learned Single Judge.

2. Heard Mr.S.Shanmuganandan, learned counsel for the appellant, Mr.Bindran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents and Mr.R.Kumaravel, learned Additional Government Pleader for the third respondent.

3. Mr.S.Shanmuganandan, learned counsel for the appellant would contend that the appellant was appointed as Sub-inspector of Fisheries in the second respondent Department. He had also acquired a certificate of competency as fishing second hand and therefore he was posted as Bosun.

On his willingness his services were utilised by the third respondent on deputation basis. He would claim that the appellant was appointed as a Skipper that is by giving one stage promotion in the year 1984 but no monetary benefits were given to him as Skipper and he had been only paid the salary of the Bosun. He was repatriated to the parent department and he had attained the age of superannuation in the year 1998. Since he had been denied his salary as Skipper, he had been making repeated representations to the second and third respondents, however, left without any remedy, he had approached this Court seeking for a Mandamus to consider his claim.

However, the learned single Judge without appreciating the case of the petitioner had rejected the Writ Petition solely on the ground of delay and latches by holding that the petitioner had approached this Court with a delay of 15 years after his superannuation. He would submit that the lawful claim of the appellant, who having been worked as a Skipper, has been negatived without considering the case on merits and therefore, he would seek interference with the orders passed by the learned Single Judge.

4. Countering his arguments, Mr.Bindran, learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the first and second respondents would submit that there is no infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge as the appellant had superannuated in the year 1998 and had only approached this Court only in the year 2013. He would further contend that the case of the petitioner was rejected by the first respondent as early as in the year 2011 which has also been intimated to the appellant by the third respondent in its communication dated 22.08.2012. In spite of such communication, the appellant without challenging the said communication, had approached this Court seeking for a Mandamus. On that ground itself the claim of the appellant is liable to be rejected. He would further submit that the pay and allowances of a Skipper was in a higher grade of pay than the post of Bosun which the appellant had held and that there was no specific order passed by the third respondent asking him to work as a Skipper. He had only continued to work as a Bosun under the third respondent and had been receiving salaries only as a Bosun. The appellant had not raised his claim immediately and there has been inordinate delay even to press such a claim for which he is not entitled to. Hence, he would seek dismissal of the Writ Appeal.

5. Mr.R.Kumaravel, learned Additional Government Pleader for the third respondent would submit that the appellant was granted a Selection Grade of Bosun with effect from 03.04.1986 and that the scale of pay that he had drawn in the Selection Grade pay was equivalent to the pay scale of a Skipper in the Office of the third respondent. Even though, he was granted an option for absorption in the MEXICAN TRAWLERS the appellant had refused to exercise such an option and in fact he had rejected the offer. He would further submit that the appellant had superannuated only as a Bosun and there has been no promotion that had been given to him as a Skipper. When that being the posit