The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of explaining and justifying any delay in filing a writ petition, as delay and laches can lead to the dismissal of the petition.

Dr. Devendra Kumar Arora,J.

Heard learned counsel for petitioner Sri Neeraj Kumar Jaiswal and Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the opposite parties.

2. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioner is seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 02.04.2011 passed by Sub Divisional Magistrate (Finance & Revenue) District Unnao and is also seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to pay him retiral benefits and pension etc. along with other service consequential benefits treating him to be regularized in service in accordance with law for the aforesaid benefits.

3. Submission of learned counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner has initially been engaged on the post of seasonal collection Amin under the opposite parties on 04.07.1983 having requisite qualification for appointment on class III post and his assistance towards recovery was more than 72%. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the name of petitioner finds place at sl. no.6 in the District seniority list. The name of petitioner also finds place at sl. no.2 in the seniority list which has been issued by opposite party no.3 vide order dated 15.02.2008. As the petitioner became over age, as per rules, for regularization of services of seasonal collection Amin, therefore, he requested vide letter dated 15.02.2008 for relaxation in age through proper channel and the same was allowed vide order dated 22.10.2008 and an order for approval for regularization of the services of petitioner was also passed. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for petitioner that vide order dated 22.07.2009 the petitioner?s name finds place in the list of regular seasonal collection Amin, which were to be considered for regularization, but as per the provisions of U.P. Collection Amin Service Rules, 2004, the services of the petitioner have not been regularized and with the lapse of time, petitioner retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on 31.10.2009.

4. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of the order having been passed by the opposite parties, the services of the petitioner were not regularized and ultimately on attaining the age of superannuation, he retired on 31.10.2009. Since the date of retirement of the petitioner till date, he has not been paid his retiral benefits and pension etc. along with other service consequential benefits, treating his services as having been regularized. The petitioner approached the opposite parties time and again but of no avail and vide impugned order dated 22.04.2011, his representation dated 05.04.2010 has been rejected. Therefore, the petitioner, is constrained to approach this Court by means of the instant writ petition seeking directions against the opposite parties for payment post retiral benefits and pension etc. along with other service consequential benefits treating him to be regularized in accordance with law for the aforesaid benefits.

5. Sri Badrul Hasan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel while opposing the writ petition submitted that the impugned order dated 22.04.2011 passed by opposite party no.3, has been challenged by the petitioner after a lapse of about three years eight months and no explanation, with respect to delay, has been given by the petitioner in the writ petition, therefore the writ petition is not maintainable, being barred by the provisions of Law of Limitation.

6. I have gone through the record.

7. This Court on a careful scrutiny of the averments made in the writ petition, finds that the petitioner while filing the instant writ petition does not utter even a single word with respect to delay in filing the writ petition. From the perusal of the averments made in the writ petition, it appears that after rejection of representation of the petitioner dated 05.04.2011, vide order dated 22.04.2011, the petitioner slept over the issue and woke up only in the month of De