JUDGMENT A.B. Pal, J. 1. The Petitioner was appointed as daily rated contingent worker on 6.5.81 by the Tripura Apex Weavers' Co-operative Society Ltd., (for short, 'the Society), the first Respondent herein, with retrospective effect from 10.2.81 as per decision of the Board of Directors taken on 9.4.81. The third and the fourth Respondents were also appointed as contingent workers like the Petitioner subsequent to the appointment of the Petitioner. The third and the fourth Respondents were appointed on regular basis to the post of Upper Division Assistant (UDA) and the Petitioner to the post of Cashier on the same date in the same scale of pay. Thereafter, the post of UDA was re-designated as Sr. Office Assistant. It is the case of the Petitioner that re-designation of the Cashier was not changed though this fact has been disputed by the official Respondents. In June, 86, the Petitioner was placed under suspension on the charge of misappropriating the case of the Society. On 13.6.90, (Annexure-E), the suspension was revoked and the proceeding was closed. It was made clear that the period of suspension would be treated as on duty for the purpose of pay, allowances, gratuity and other benefits of services. During this period of suspension of the Petitioner, the third and the fourth Respondents were promoted to the post of Administrative Officer and Supervisor respectively with effect from 28.8.89 and 16.8.89. When the Petitioner resumed duties following closure of the disciplinary proceeding, the post of Cashier held by him was re-designated as Sr. Sales Assistant and thereafter he was transferred to Guwahati. The grievance of the Petitioner is that though he was senior to the third and the fourth Respondents in view of his prior date of appointment as contingent worker, he was not considered for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer with effect from 28.8.89 when his junior, the third Respondent herein was promoted and all his representations to the official Respondents canvassing his case again and again fell into deaf years. By this writ petition, the Petitioner has urged this Court to issue a writ directing the official Respondents to promote him to the post of Administrative Officer with effect from 28.8.89 when his junior was promoted to that post with all benefits of service including pay and allowances attached to that post. 2. By this writ petition, the Petitioner has urged this Court to issue a writ directing the official Respondents to promote him to the post of Administrative Officer with effect from 28.8.89 when his junior was promoted to that post with all benefits of service including pay and allowances attached to that post. 2. The official Respondents contested the claim controverting, inter alia, the fact with regard to the inter se seniority of the Petitioner and the two private Respondents. It is strongly placed in their pleadings that para 17 of the bye-laws of the Society empowers the Board of Directors to appoint and regulate from time to time within the limit of the budget sanctioned, the staff of the Society and their salaries and allowances. Accordingly, in exercise of the said powers, the Society had appointed third and the fourth Respondent to the post of UDA on 27.9.82 and the Petitioner to the post of Cashier with effect from 1.10.82. It is further contended that the nature and responsibility of the posts of UDA and Cashier are not identical and, therefore, they cannot be equated for any purpose whatsoever. The nomenclature of the post of UDA was changed to Sr. Office Assistant while that of Cashier to Sr. Sales Assistant by a decision of the Board taken on 19.5.86. The Petitioner was placed under suspension as there was a prima facie evidence of his involvement in cash defalcation which was followed by a regular proceeding though the charges could not be proved for want of sufficient evidence. However, it is admitted that the third and the fourth Respondents were promoted to the post of Administrative Officer and Supervisor considering their performances on the basis of resolution of the Board held on 22.5.89. As the Petitioner was holding the post of Cashier and then Sr. Sales Assistant, his experience was not considered suitable for the post of Administrative Officer for which experience in office of administration was the requirement which the private Respondents had acquired during their service as Sr. Office Assistant. As the Petitioner was holding the post of Cashier and then Sr. Sales Assistant, his experience was not considered suitable for the post of Administrative Officer for which experience in office of administration was the requirement which the private Respondents had acquired during their service as Sr. Office Assistant. Apart from the different line of promotion and different nature of job attached to the posts held by the Petitioner and the private Respondents, it is further contended that the Petitioner was never senior to the private Respondents as the length of service rendered by them in contingent posts could not be legally taken into consideration after their appointment on regular basis. It has been pointed out that the Petitioner was allowed graded scale according to the length of his service which benefit was not allowed to the third and the fourth Respondents due to their promotion. As the Petitioner and the Respondents were regularized by memorandum dated 27.9.82, the regular appointment of the Petitioner to the post of Cashier was given effect only from 1.10.82. It is, thus, finally contended that the Petitioner having been absorbed on regular basis to a post distinct and different from the posts held by the private Respondents, this writ petition claiming promotion with retrospective effect from the date when the third Respondent was promoted to the post of Administrative Officer is fully misconceived and, therefore, liable to be quashed at the very threshold. 3. I have heard Mr. B. Das, learned Sr. Counsel assisted by Mr. D. Chakaraborty, learned advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. P.K. Paul, learned Counsel for the Respondent-Society. 4. The argument advanced by Mr. Das is that the principle of natural justice demanded the length of service rendered by the Petitioner as contingent worker should have been given certain weightage over the private Respondents who admittedly were appointed as contingent worker later than the Petitioner. Though the Petitioner and the private Respondents were absorbed on regular basis by the memorandum issued on the same day, no just reason could not shown why the appointment of the Petitioner was given effect from a later date. That apart, the post of UDA and Cashier are inter-changeable and, therefore, it was the duty of the official Respondents to finalize a common seniority list for the purpose of promotion to the post of Administrative Officer. That apart, the post of UDA and Cashier are inter-changeable and, therefore, it was the duty of the official Respondents to finalize a common seniority list for the purpose of promotion to the post of Administrative Officer. It is further submitted that though the Petitioner was senior to the third and the fourth Respondents in view of his longer period of service and he was under suspension when promotion to the post of Administrative Officer was under consideration it was the duty of the official Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner also along with the private Respondents and follow the sealed cover procedure, according to which, the consideration by the DPC should have been given effect depending on the results of the disciplinary proceeding. In the case of the Petitioner, Mr. Das argues, no such procedure was followed and it was found after a long period of four years of suspension that the disciplinary proceeding against the Petitioner had no basis at all. It is his contention that had there been no such disciplinary proceeding and suspension of the Petitioner his case deserved to be considered for promotion to the post of Administrative Officer along with the third and the fourth Respondent and if weightage was given to the longer period of service he had rendered as contingent worker, he would have certainly marched over the third and the fourth Respondents. In support of the above contention, Mr. Das placed reliance on some decisions of the Supreme Court in State of M.P. v. Bani Singh and Ors. reported in AIR 1990 SC 1308 , in District Registrar, Palghat v. M.B. Koyyakutty reported in AIR 1979 SC 1060 and in State of Mysore v. Syed Mahmood reported in AIR 1968 SC 1113 . In all the above three cases dealt with by the Apex Court the rules applicable to the parties involved therein and the respective factual matrix were the basis for rendering the decision. In the case on hand, the facts in issue are quite different. In the first place there existed no common recruitment rules for the post of Sr. Office Assistant or Sr. Sales Assistant. Secondly, no common seniority of incumbents of the said posts was in place and thirdly, no rule existed providing for extra weightage for the length of service as contingent worker for considering promotion to the higher posts. 5. In the first place there existed no common recruitment rules for the post of Sr. Office Assistant or Sr. Sales Assistant. Secondly, no common seniority of incumbents of the said posts was in place and thirdly, no rule existed providing for extra weightage for the length of service as contingent worker for considering promotion to the higher posts. 5. However, as has been noticed above, the stand of the official Respondents is that the nature of job of the Sr. Sales Assistant and the Sr. Office Assistant and the responsibility attached to them being district and different they cannot be equated for any purpose including for the purpose of promotion. Mr. Paul, learned Counsel for the Respondent-Society questioned the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay alone. Admittedly, the third and the fourth Respondents were promoted to the post of Administrative Officer and Supervisor in the year 1989 and the Petitioner has filed the case in 1996 after a period of about 7 years which delay has not been explained anywhere in the writ petition. Even though there is no specific law of limitation for filing a writ petition, it is the well settled proposition of law that long and inordinate delay if not sufficiently explained shall certainly constitute a formidable bar against considering the relief sought for, mainly for the reason that any such relief if granted would upset the settled position. As regards counting of past service for the purpose of seniority as claimed by the Petitioner on the basis of the memorandum dated 19.7.82 of the Finance Department placed at Annexure-L of the rejoinder, Mr. Paul has taken me through the relevant provisions thereof which would show that it was applicable to those employees who worked as piece rated typists, copyists, extra-moharars and contingent employees who were regularized without any break in their past service. The counting of past service was only for the purpose of pension. As regards seniority, Mr. Paul has pointed out that a common seniority list of Sr. Office Assistant, Sr. Sales Assistant and Cashier was prepared after absorption of the Petitioner and the private Respondents in regular employment. The date of birth shown in column No. 4 indicates that the Petitioner was born on 2.1.58 while third Respondent on 20.1.53 and the fourth on 5.1.57. In age both the private Respondents are senior to the Petitioner. Office Assistant, Sr. Sales Assistant and Cashier was prepared after absorption of the Petitioner and the private Respondents in regular employment. The date of birth shown in column No. 4 indicates that the Petitioner was born on 2.1.58 while third Respondent on 20.1.53 and the fourth on 5.1.57. In age both the private Respondents are senior to the Petitioner. When the seniority list is not prepared on the basis of the merit and when all the persons are absorbed on the same date, the age should be basis of seniority as per general principles of the seniority adopted in the State of Tripura. Thus, considering that Petitioner was not superseded by the private Respondents and considering from that angle, the claim of the Petitioner does not appear to have any merit. 6. The rival pleadings and the supported documents narrow down the controversy regarding seniority which unmistakably shows that in the absence of any specific rules to the contrary the Petitioner in the private Respondents having appointed on regular basis on the same date, the previous services cannot be given any weightage for the purpose of seniority. The memorandum at Annexure-L of the rejoinder of the Petitioner leaves no doubt that the same was intended only for the purpose of giving pensionary benefits, not for any other purpose. Thus, the question of weightage for the service rendered as contingent worker merits no consideration. As they were regularized on the same date and as there is no separate rule for determining their seniority, the general principle of seniority which was formulated in 1960 should be taken into consideration and according to that principle persons appointed not on merit their seniority must be determined on the basis of the age if they are appointed on the same date. The seniority list shown by Mr. Pal which has not been disputed by the Petitioner unmistakably shows that the Petitioner was junior in age to the private Respondents and, therefore, he was rightly placed below them. Therefore, the grievance of suppression as adumbrated by the Petitioner does not appear to have any merit. 7. For the foregoing discussions, this writ petition does not appear to have any merit and consequently, the same is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own cost. Petition dismissed