Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. Eventhough the matter is listed for considering the question of stay in the vacate stay petition, since the very same question is involved in the writ petition and since the pleadings are also one and the same, with the consent of the learned counsel on either side, the writ petition itself is taken up for final disposal. 2. The present first respondent had filed O.A.No.1696 of 2001 challenging the order of transfer in Roc.No.88010/E1/1/2000 dated 31.1.2001. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was to the effect that eventhough the first respondent has already been promoted to the post of Senior Civil Surgeon, which is ranked equivalent to that of a Reader in the Government Medical College, under the impugned order of transfer, the Government purported to promote the first respondent and transfer him within a short span of about six weeks from the date of original posting as Senior Civil Surgeon. The Tribunal had passed an order of stay in O.A.No.1696 of 2001 on 2.3.2001 and subsequently on 27.3.2001, passed an order extending the stay. Thereafter, at the instance of one Dr. Shalini, who is the second respondent in the present writ petition (4th respondent in O.A.No.1696 of 2001) such order of Tribunal was stayed by an order of this Court in W.P.No.65 10 of 2001 dated 4.4.2001. Ultimately, by a Division Bench order of this Court dated 3.7.2001, the writ petition was disposed of by directing the Tribunal to dispose of O.A.No.1696 of 2001 either on its merits or on the question relating to stay. Subsequently, the Tribunal passed final order on 29.11.2001 allowing such O.A. and holding that the transfer on the basis of the so called promotion was not correct as the first respondent (applicant before the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal) had already been promoted to the post of Senior Civil Surgeon. The Tribunal also gave a categorical direction regarding payment of all monetary benefits. The Tribunal also gave a categorical direction regarding payment of all monetary benefits. Thereafter, as the Government remained quiet for a long period and no monetary benefits were given, the first respondent was forced to file W.P.No.28893 of 2004, wherein this Court by an order dated 7.10.2004 gave a direction to the following effect: "As the scope of the prayer is very limited, by putting the Additional Government Pleader on notice, the respondents are hereby directed to implement the order dated 29.11.2001 passed in O.A.No.1691 of 2001 by the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal, Chennai by paying the salary and other full monetary benefits within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment." Inspite of such an order, since there was non implementation, the first respondent herein was forced to file Contempt Petition No.799 of 2005 wherein notice was directed to be issued on 8.9.2005, which was served on the learned Government Pleader. The present writ petition has been filed on 9.12.2005 challenging the order, of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1696 of 2001 dated 29.11.2001. In other words, the writ petition has been filed after a lapse of four years and after the categorical direction given by the learned Single Judge for implementation of the order of the Tribunal. 3. It is also brought to our notice that in the meantime, the second petitioner/second respondent in O.A.No.1696 of 2001 has issued a direction to implement the order of the Tribunal on 19.1.2005 to settle the salary and full monetary benefits to the first respondent immediately, which reads as follows: "The xerox copy of the order dated 7.10.2004 issued by the Hon'ble High Court, Chennai in W.P.No.28893 of 2604 filed by Dr. P.A. Adalarasu formerly Reader in ENT, Chengalpattu Medical College, Chengalpattu is communicated herewith for taking necessary further action. The Dean, Chengalpattu Medical College, Chengalpattu is requested to take necessary steps to settle the salary and other full monetary benefits to the Medical Officer immediately." 4. In the background of the aforesaid facts, we have no other alternative than to dismiss the writ petition solely on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence. Eventhough, specific period is specified for filing writ petition, it is well settled in law, that such a writ petition is required to be filed as expeditiously possible without discernible delay, laches, acquiescence. In the background of the aforesaid facts, we have no other alternative than to dismiss the writ petition solely on the ground of delay, laches and acquiescence. Eventhough, specific period is specified for filing writ petition, it is well settled in law, that such a writ petition is required to be filed as expeditiously possible without discernible delay, laches, acquiescence. By no stretch of imagination period of four years can be said to be reasonable period. No explanation has A6 been furnished in the writ petition explaining the total inaction on the part of the present petitioner for a period of nearly four years. 5. Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the writ petitioners submitted that once the writ petition is admitted, the question of laches should not be considered. 6. We are unable to accept this submission as the writ petition was admitted ex parte and it is not known whether the question of laches was considered by the Court, before admission Therefore, it could not be assumed that the laches has been considered by this Court. 7. For that aforesaid facts, without going into the merits of the contention, we are constrained to dismiss the writ petition. Since the present writ petition has been dismissed and the order of the Tamil Nadu Administrative Tribunal has been confirmed by the learned Single Judge, the learned Special Government Pleader says that the order of the Tribunal shall be implemented within a period of two months from the date of the receipt of the present order. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also dismissed.