Judgment :- S.P. TALUKDAR, J. (1.) THE petitioner, Dilip Kumar Ghosh, by filing the instant application under Article 226 of the Constitution alleged arbitrary, unjust and illegal action on the part of the respondent-authority. The facts of the present case are as follows: - (2.) THE petitioner was appointed as a casual worker in the respondent-organization on 4th of May, 1981. The Project Engineer recommended his regularization on 4th June, 1982. He submitted a representation on 14th september, 1983. On 19th of September, 1983, he was served with a termination order. He along with others approached this court by filing an application, registered as Civil Rule No. 1645 (W) of 1984. It was disposed of on 7. 8. 1984 with direction upon the petitioners to file applications for absorption and the authority concerned was directed to consider the same sympathetically and dispose it of after giving the petitioners opportunity of hearing. (3.) AFTER initial indifference, the concerned authority finally dealt with such applications but failed to appreciate the grievances of the petitioners in the proper perspective. This was followed up by the petitioners" filing another application, registered as 7489 (W) of 1986 in which order was passed on 3. 4. 1986 with direction for consideration afresh after giving opportunity to make submission to both parties. (4.) THE authority concerned was directed to pass a reasoned order and the parties were given opportunity to be represented by respective lawyers. The said application came for final hearing and by order dated 20. 9. 1991, learned Single bench set aside the order of termination dated 19. 9. 1983. Direction was given for consideration of the grievances de novo within a period of 8 weeks and to pass a reasoned order. Though hearing took place finally on 23. 6. 1992, the decision was not communicated to the petitioners. In early part of June, 1996, it could be learnt that the authorities were taking steps for regularization of some contractual and casual workers. The petitioner again submitted a representation on 28. 6. 1996 and by letter dated 25. 9. 1996, he was asked to join as casual worker. The petitioner accordingly joined on 4. 10. 1996. (5.) THE Board took the matter of regularization/absorption of the petitioner and others into consideration. The petitioner again submitted a representation on 28. 6. 1996 and by letter dated 25. 9. 1996, he was asked to join as casual worker. The petitioner accordingly joined on 4. 10. 1996. (5.) THE Board took the matter of regularization/absorption of the petitioner and others into consideration. It was resolved in the said meeting that the petitioner as well as another, Sri Samir Kumar Ghosh, were engaged as casual employees on 4th May, 1981 and on 12th November, 1980 respectively and they rendered services continuously for a period about 4 years as Group-C employees (i.e., Accounts Assistant and Typist). Demanding regularization in service, a writ application was filed before the High Court for absorption after they were not allowed to continue their service in the Corporation. In compliance with the order of the Honble High Court, Calcutta, the petitioner and Sri Samir Kr. Ghosh were taken back in service under reinstatement order by the Executive Vice chairman, WBCADC, vide No. 1202 (2) dated 25. 9. 1996. They joined on 4th october, 1996. Since then, they have been in the service of the Corporation till date continuously and satisfactorily. As per directives of the Labour Department, government of West Bengal, both petitioner and Sri Samir Kr. Ghosh had fulfilled the condition for regularization in the service of the Corporation both in the past before reinstatement and for the present as well. The proposal for regularization of their service under the order of the High Court, Calcutta, was approved. The Executive Vice Chairman was authorized to issue necessary order. (6.) IT would be apparent from the Boards resolution that the service of the petitioner should have been regularized with effect from 4. 10. 1996 as regular employee to the Corporation in the post of Accounts Assistant and therefore, the so-called reinstatement of the petitioner as casual worker contained in the letter dated 25. 9. 1996 is patently illegal and without jurisdiction as it directly opposes the decision of the Board. The petitioner should have been regularized with effect from 4. 10. 1996 with all statutory service benefits. Subsequent to that, a large number of casual workers were regularized by two different Memos dated 31. 7. 1997 in the said Corporation but the concerned authority in a very tactical manner did not send the name of the petitioner in the said order. 10. 1996 with all statutory service benefits. Subsequent to that, a large number of casual workers were regularized by two different Memos dated 31. 7. 1997 in the said Corporation but the concerned authority in a very tactical manner did not send the name of the petitioner in the said order. By that order, the service of those casual workers on regular basis on and from 14.8.1997 was regularized. (7.) BY order dated 31st July, 1997 the service of more than 74 similarly placed candidates like the petitioner in the said Corporation was regularized. The petitioner was not included in the said list which was wholly arbitrary and highly questionable. The Deputy Secretary of the Department of Development and planning made a communication to the concerned Corporation on 28th April, 2000 making certain queries. How the name of the petitioner in the final list for proposal of absorption of casual workers, as made by letter dated 15. 10. 1996, was not mentioned? There was no suitable reply to such query in the letter dated 18. 5. 2000. (8.) THE petitioner alleged that it is apparent from Boards Agenda being item no. 10 (E) dated 30. 1. 2002 that the petitioner was taken back in the service of the corporation in terms of the Courts order for absorption and it was also indicated in the said Agenda that the petitioners service is legitimate and thereby, the petitioner is eligible for regularization in the said service. The approval was made on 4. 3. 2002 by the concerned authority as recommended by the Board but this was wholly arbitrary, malafide since the Board desired the petitioner to be regularized with effect from 4. 10. 1996. The petitioner thus, claimed that his service should have been regularized with effect from 4. 10. 1996 instead of 4th March, 2002. The petitioner submitted representations one after another but to no avail. Thus, the petitioner was left with no choice but to seek redress before this court. (9.) THE respondent No. 1 contested the case by filing affidavit-in-opposition, thereby, denying, inter alia, all the material allegations made in the writ application. It was not denied that the respondent-Corporation engaged a good number of casual and temporary workers at the relevant point of time. (9.) THE respondent No. 1 contested the case by filing affidavit-in-opposition, thereby, denying, inter alia, all the material allegations made in the writ application. It was not denied that the respondent-Corporation engaged a good number of casual and temporary workers at the relevant point of time. The name of the writ petitioner along with others was recommended for regularization in service but the Corporation on the basis of its requirements had to engage casual workers in different projects. Sometime it also engaged contractual workers. The casual workers and contractual workers were engaged as per the requirement of the different projects of the Corporation over a particular period and there was no promotion whatsoever for regular employment. In response to a representation submitted by the petitioner, the Executive Vice Chairman reinstated him as a casual worker with immediate effect. Such respondent No. 1 claimed that the petitioner was not in service, neither in casual nor in regular manner and therefore, absorption and/or regularization of his service straight way was not possible. It was further claimed that the petitioner was not engaged in any manner whatsoever for more than 10 years. It was further claimed that at the time of termination, the petitioner was a casual employee and he was reinstated as a casual employee. The respondent No. 1 in such affidavit-in-opposition expressed surprise over the manner in which the petitioner could lay his hands on the interdepartmental correspondence and official files. It was then stated that the position and status of the writ petitioner are distinct and separate from those whose services were regularized with effect from 14th August, 1997. The respondent No. 1 thus, sought for dismissal of the writ application with costs. (10.) THE petitioner again filed an affidavit-in-reply to such opposition. (11.) THE factual backdrop of the present case is quite rightly not in dispute. It appears from the correspondence dated 28th April, 2000 made by the Deputy secretary, addressed to the Joint Administrative Secretary, WBCADC that the petitioner joined as casual worker in response to the order of the High Court, on 4th October, 1996. Question was raised as to why the petitioner was not included in the final list sent by the Corporation in its letter dated 15. 10. 1996. According to Mr. Question was raised as to why the petitioner was not included in the final list sent by the Corporation in its letter dated 15. 10. 1996. According to Mr. Lahiri, learned Counsel for the writ petitioner, there had been conscious indifference, if not wilful inaction, on the part of the respondent-authority, which was determined to make the writ petitioner suffer. (12.) LEARNED Counsel for the respondent-authority, however, relied upon the correspondence made by the Joint administrative Secretary of the Corporation, addressed to the Deputy Secretary, Department of Development and Planning while explaining the situation. It was clarified that the petitioner joined as casual worker on 4. 10. 1996 in compliance with the order of the High Court. The list of the names of casual master roll and contract workers was placed before the 37th corporation Board Meeting for regularization of their services on 13. 12. 1990. There could be no question of the petitioner having been in scene at that point of time. (13.) THE stand of the respondent-authority is, thus, clear. It was categorically claimed that the writ petitioner by virtue of the order of the High Court, was appointed as a casual worker. This was subsequently followed by regularization of his service. But the question of giving effect from an earlier date cannot just arise. It is also worth mentioning that the petitioner for reasons best known to him kept quiet for a long time suddenly woke up from slumber after about 4 years of alleged discrimination. The materials on record by no stretch of imagination indicate any arbitrary act on the part of the concerned authority. There is no impropriety or illegality in the action taken by the respondent-authority by giving effect to the order of regularization on and from 4. 3. 2002. (14.) CONSIDERING all these aspects, the present writ application being w. P. No. 2224 (W) of 2007 fails and be dismissed. There is no order as to costs. Xerox certified copy of this judgment, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon due compliance of the legal formalities.