Judgment 1. Heard Mr. Ratan Prasad Sinha, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition. 2. According to the petitioner he was engaged as Chaukidar on daily wages, in the Bihar State Scheduled Caste Cooperative Development Corporation Limited on 1.10.1986. However, the order of his appointment or engagement is not produced before this Court. He was removed from service, after complying with the provisions of section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, by an office order issued by the Executive Engineer, South Bihar Division, Ranchi under his memo no. 702 dated 11.4.1996. 3. This writ petition has been filed on 4.3.2002, challenging the order of his removal from service that was passed six years ago. The delay in approaching this court is sought to be explained by stating that persons engaged after the petitioner were retained in service and in some cases where the services of certain persons were terminated on similar grounds, they approached this court and the court set aside the termination orders in their cases and as a result they vere taken back in employment. In the light of the order passed by this court in cases of other employees, the petitioner makes a further prayer that he should also be allowed the same relief as others, who approached this court earlier. 4. To my mind the explanation offered by the petitioner hardly justifies the delay in filing this case. Those who came to this court earlier and in whose favour this court intervened were clearly more vigilant of their rights but the orders passed in their cases cannot be used by the petitioner to try to reopen his six years old case. 5. Moreover, from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents it appears that the petitioner has not got the facts accurately. In the cases of some other employees referred to by the petitioner the order of the court was to reconsider the matter and after reconsideration they were once again removed from service. 6. In the counter affidavit it is further stated that the petitioner was engaged in the Engineering Cell of the Corporation. Now the Engineering Cell has been abolished w.e.f. 25.7.2000 and in cases of a number of employees, coming from the Engineering Cell of the Corporation, this court declined to give any relief only on the ground that the cell in question was no longer in existence. Now the Engineering Cell has been abolished w.e.f. 25.7.2000 and in cases of a number of employees, coming from the Engineering Cell of the Corporation, this court declined to give any relief only on the ground that the cell in question was no longer in existence. 7. Counsel for the petitioner stated that he was not engaged in the Engineering Cell but there is no material to support the claim that the petitioner was engaged outside the Engineering Cell. 8. For all these reasons, I am not inclined to entertain this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed.