ARINDAM LODH,J. - (1.)Heard Mr. TK Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the appellant. Also heard Mr. N. Majumder, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 3 and 4 and Mr. D. Bhattacharjee, learned GA assisted by Mr. P. Saha, learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 and 2.
(2.)The petitioner has challenged in this intra-court appeal the order dtd. 19/12/2019 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in case no. WP(C) 626 of 2019.
(3.)The petitioner claimed regularization w.e.f. 1/7/2008. The learned single Judge held that the petition is absolutely barred by delay and laches since the petitioner had approached this court in the year 2019. It is further observed by the learned single Judge that the petitioner could not explain such delay and laches in his writ petition. The impugned order of learned single Judge may be reproduced herein- below:
'Petitioner's grievance is that he has been granted regularization with effect from 10/8/2011 whereas other persons, who had also been engaged like the petitioner on daily wage basis in the year 2003, have been granted such benefits with effect from 1/7/2008.

The respondents have filed reply contending that as per the Scheme for regularization only upon completion of 8 years of service on daily wage basis, the person will be eligible for regularization. According to them, petitioner could claim regularization only from the year 2013 and not earlier. Counsel for the petitioner would, however, contend that such requirement of 10 years is relaxed to 5 years in case of SC/ST candidate, the petitioner belongs Scheduled Caste.

The record will show that the petitioner was regularized under an order dtd. 3/8/2011. The present petition is filed in the year 2019 i.e. after a gap of nearly 8 years. There is no explanation for such long and inordinate delay in filing the petition. All that the counsel for the petitioners stated was that the petitioner had made representations and he was hopeful of a positive reply. Even the representation which the counsel is referring to was made on 8/11/2017. This representation itself was thus grossly belated and in any case by making a mere representation after long delay the petitioner cannot explain delay and laches of several years. Significantly, the co-employees to whose cases the petitioner has made a reference for earlier regularization, had approached this court by filing a writ petition in the year 2011 in which the Court had issued certain directions for granting earlier date of regularization without monetary benefits.

No case for interference is made out. Petition is dismissed.'

;