Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari, to quash the order passed by the respondents in declining the relief of regularization from the date of initial appointment. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Junior Assistant on 12.05.1974. His services were regularized on 01.03.1979. It was after seven years of regularization, that the petitioner filed representation with the respondents to regularize his services with effect from the date of initial appointment. 3. The request made by him was declined, on the ground of delay and latches. The case set up by petitioner is, that there is no rule stipulating, that the petitioner could not be regularized from the date of initial appointment, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to be regularized from the date of initial appointment. 4. This contention on the face of it is misconceived, as in absence of any law or rules, requiring the employer to regularize the services of petitioner from the date of initial appointment, the petitioner cannot claim such relief. In any case, the petitioner has since retired, as per the settled law, for the purpose of pension, even services rendered as temporary employee is to be counted towards pensionary benefits. The petitioner therefore does not suffer any loss for non regularization of his services from the date of initial appointment. 5. As already observed above, the petitioner has not placed on record any rule or policy decision of the State Government giving right for regularization from the date of his initial appointment. In absence of any such law or rules, no such relief as prayed for can be granted to the petitioner. 6. No merits. Dismissed. 7. No costs.