JUDGMENT Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. I.A. No. 8785 of 2011 is stated to have been filed on behalf of the petitioner on 15.12.2011 questioning the order dated 15.11.2011 rejecting his claims for regularisation. The I.A. application is not available on the record. The Court requested Counsel for the petitioner to make available his copy for perusal so as not to hold up the proceeding on that ground. Let the office place the original I.A. application on record. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was initially appointed on daily wage on 1.1.1980 and worked as such till 30.12.1981. On 1.1.1982 he was brought into work charge establishment and continued to work as such when others similarly situated have been regularised causing hostile discrimination against the petitioner. The petitioner represented for the same which has now been rejected after his superannuation. 4. The writ application has been filed on 25.10.2011 six days before his superannuation on 31.10.2011. Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner is not entitled to any relief on basis of parity if he was not vigilant and others may have pursued remedies appropriately in due time. It is also submitted that if he has superannuated there can be no retrospective regularisation. 5. On the own showing of the petitioner he was aware of his claim for regularisation from 3.4.2007. He represented as late as 2.8.2011 which came to be considered on 21.10.2011 and rejected on 15.11.2011. It is apparent that the petitioner was himself not vigilant for protection and enforcement of his claims for regularisation even though he was of the opinion that he was subjected to hostile discrimination vis a vis others. 6. Parity in relief can be denied to a litigant who may be fence sitting waiting and watching the results with regard to certain others but does not wake up to enforce his own rights in time. 7. It is apparent that the petitioner woke up to his claims at virtually the end of his career literally months before the same. He has only himself to blame for his indolence. 8. Counsel for the State rightly urged that after his superannuation on 31.10.2011 no orders for retrospective regularisation can be passed as regularisation has necessarily to be prospective in nature only. 9. There is no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.