ORDER 1. Since on an earlier occasion, a bench of this Court had directed that both the matters will be considered together, they are being so considered. 2. The appellant-writ petitioner was working on honorarium as a teacher in the Patratu Thermal Power Station High School, Patratu. That arrangement of teaching on honorarium was put an end to in the year 1988. The appellant obviously accepted that position and did not challenge the decision within a reasonable time. The writ petition giving rise to this appeal was filed in the year 1995, presumably taking inspiration from some orders said to have been passed in some other writ petitions. 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that it was highly belated, that the petitioner only worked on honorarium basis and that such working did riot create any right in the petitioner to claim permanency or a claim for being absorbed. It was also observed by the learned Judge that the instant case is fully covered by the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 93/95, wherein it was held that persons like the appellant are not entitled to any relief. Thus the writ petition was dismissed. 4. There is a delay in filing the appeal. As we have noticed, we initially did not deal with the petition for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, in view of the earlier order passed by this Court to the effect that both the matters will be considered together. 5. We find that the learned Single Judge was fully justified in dismissing the writ petition after considering all the relevant aspects and the materials referred to in the judgment under appeal. There was a delay of seven years on the part of the appellant in approaching this Court. In this situation, we are not satisfied that the decision of the learned Single Judge requires to be interfered with. 6. Secondly, the appellant was only working on honorarium basis and, therefore, the learned Judge was justified in holding that such a person has no right to claim permanency or a claim to be absorbed. 7. Thirdly, we are also inclined to agree with the view of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the ratio of the decision in LPA No. 93 of 1995 will squarely apply to the case of the appellant. 8. 7. Thirdly, we are also inclined to agree with the view of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the ratio of the decision in LPA No. 93 of 1995 will squarely apply to the case of the appellant. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant sought support from the judgment in CWJC No. 1049/91(R) and connected cases, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure 7. On scrutiny of the said judgment, we find that in that judgment also, the Division Bench held that the petitioners therein, who are allegedly similarly situated as the appellant, were not entitled to relief of regularization/absorption. Thus on the main issue, it appears to us, that the appellant cannot derive any support from that judgment, 9. Thus we are satisfied that there is no merit in this appeal. In that view, both the appeal and the petition for condoning the delay are dismissed.