JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner is a retrenched employee of the Census Department, Government of India. He was retrenched in the year 1992. At the time of retrenchment, a number of writ applications were filed before this Court. Ultimately, the Government framed a policy by which certain employees would be reengaged. Some of the persons who were aggrieved by the non-compliance of the orders of this Court filed contempt application. Several similarly situated persons who were retrenched employees of the Census Department, also filed contempt application, which was disposed of by order dated 19.08.1993 (MJC No. 1157 of 1992). The Division Bench of this Court while noticing that such a contempt application would technically not be maintainable, went on to hold that "Accordingly, the only order to be passed in this case is that the respondents are directed to treat the petitioners, who are ex-census employees, in the same way as in respect of whom orders have been passed by this Court from time to time. However, the age bar, if any, is to be ignored for this purpose because of the unfair action of the State Government this situation has arisen and, accordingly, this aspect of over age is to be ignored. However, if any application is required to be made by the petitioners before the authorities concerned for this purpose, such application shall be made within fortnight. The petitioners and all other persons similarly situated i.e. all retrenched ex-census employees, must be treated in the same fashion, whether they are party to any writ petition or not and whether any specific order has been made in their favour specifically or not". 2. Counsel for the petitioner draws this Courts attention to Annexure-10 dated 24.05.1999, which is a letter sent by the Commissioner-cum- Secretary of the Land Reforms Department to the District Magistrate, Bhagalpur informing him that in view of the order of this Court passed in MJC No. 1157 of 1992, the applications of all retrenched Class-Ill employees of the Census Department should be accepted and after considering their cases, they should be absorbed. 3. This writ application has been filed after 27 years after the retrenchment of the petitioner (the petitioner was retrenched in the year 1982), the orders passed in the writ application between the year 1990 to 1992. 3. This writ application has been filed after 27 years after the retrenchment of the petitioner (the petitioner was retrenched in the year 1982), the orders passed in the writ application between the year 1990 to 1992. The contempt application was disposed of in the year 1993 with a direction to all such persons who were ex-census employees to file an application within 14 days before the concerned authorities. The District Magistrates were also directed to receive such applications in compliance with the orders passed in the contempt application. 4. The petitioner has not been able to explain the delay except to say that he was not aware of the various orders of this Court. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that delay and latches should not be considered as a draw-back in filing the writ application, if it does not act to the detriment of any other persons as has been held by this Court in the case of Mohan Prasad Singh and Another V/s. The State of Bihar and Others [1993 (3)BLJ 200]. 5. Considering the judgment of this Court as well as the submission made on behalf of the petitioner, this Court does not agree with the submissions on the ground that the absorption of the ex-census employees has already been concluded long ago and the petitioner sat over the matter and did not take any steps whatsoever to ventilate his grievances. Apparently, the petitioner was satisfied with his situation and, therefore, this Court cannot pass any positive order for absorption of the petitioner as was done in the case of other ex-census employees who had moved this Court within time. 6. On behalf of the State, it has been stated that all vacancies of Class-IV employees have been filled in from the 2004 panel. It is also stated that even the future vacancies will have to be filled up from the same panel list, and as such it has been stated that the case of the petitioner cannot be considered or recommended by the authorities for absorption. 7. Considering all aspects and for the reasons discussed above, this Court finds no merit in this writ application and it is accordingly dismissed.