ORDER 1. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, as well the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents. 2. It has been stated that the petitioner had joined in service, as direct Grade-I Police Constable. Thereafter, he had been promoted to the various posts. While so, he had retired from service, as an Inspector of Police. It has been stated that, even though the petitioner was eligible and entitled to be promoted, as a Deputy Superintendent of Police, before he had attained the age of superannuation, on 31.5.2006, he had not been given such promotion. 3. It had been further submitted that, in spite of the earlier directions issued by this Court, the petitioner had not been considered for being promoted, as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Even though several representations had been submitted, by the petitioner, the respondents have not considered him for being promoted, as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. It has also been stated that the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal had directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner, within the period specified therein. However, the claim of the petitioner for promotion had not been considered. 4. Even though the Government of Tamilnadu had passed an order, dated 22.3.1996, to implement the order of the Tribunal, he has not been given the promotion, as per the said order. Even though the petitioner had been promoted, as a Sub Inspector of Police, as per the order, dated 20.5.1996, passed by the Tribunal, in O.A.No.2146 of 1991, his seniority has not been restored. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, it has been stated that the petitioner, who had been appointed, as Grade-I Police Constable, by way of direct recruitment, on 1.2.1972, was promoted, as a Head constable, on 1.6.1983. Later, he was promoted, as a Sub Inspector of Police, on 7.8.1992. In the Government Order, in G.O.(2D) No.64, Home (Pol.III) Department, dated 27.2.2001, the government had ordered the revision of his seniority, as a Sub Inspector of Police and to include his name in the panel for promotion, as Inspector of Police, for the year 1995-1996, at Serial No.310(A). Thereafter, the petitioner had been promoted, as an Inspector of Police, on 27.4.2001. 6. Thereafter, the petitioner had been promoted, as an Inspector of Police, on 27.4.2001. 6. It had also been stated that the names of those who were junior to the petitioner and some of his batchmates had been included in the temporary panel of Inspector of Police, fit for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police (Category-I), for the year 2007-2008, and it had been approved, in G.O.Ms.No.658 Home (Pol.2) Department, dated 10.6.2008. The crucial date for the preparation of the said panel was 1.6.2007. 7. It has been further stated that the petitioner had retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.5.2006, well before the approval of the panel, for the year 2007-2008. As such, the petitioner had not reached the zone of consideration, for being added in the panel for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Category-I). In fact, none of his juniors had been promoted to the said post. 8. It had also been stated that the name of the petitioner could not be considered for promotion, at the relevant point of time, due to the punishments undergone by him. Further, the name of the petitioner had been included in the `C’ list of Sub Inspector of Police, for the year 1985 and 1986. As such the petitioner is not entitled to claim that he should have been promoted, as a Deputy Superintendent of Police, as prayed for by the petitioner, in the present writ petition. 9. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the earlier orders passed by this Court and the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal had not been implemented, by the respondents, promptly. As such, the petitioner had been victimised. He had further submitted that the counter affidavit had not been filed by the right persons. As the respondents had been biased against the petitioner, he had not been considered for being promoted, as a Deputy Superintendent of Police, prior to his retirement from service. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had come before this Court, belatedly, stating that he should have been considered for promotion, to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, along with other similarly placed persons. 10. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner had come before this Court, belatedly, stating that he should have been considered for promotion, to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, along with other similarly placed persons. Further, the name of the petitioner could not be considered for promotion, as there were several charges pending against him, on the crucial date, as pointed out in paragraph-11 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner, in the present writ petition, is devoid of merits. 11. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner, as well as the respondents, and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner had made his claim, for being promoted to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police, belatedly. Nothing has been shown on behalf of the petitioner, as to why he had filed the present writ petition, before this Court, after the lapse of several years from the time when the cause of action had arisen. It is also noted that several punishments had been imposed on the petitioner and that they were on record, on the crucial date when the names of similarly placed candidates had been considered for promotion to the post of Deputy Superintendent of Police. Further, the petitioner had retired from service, on his attaining the age of superannuation, on 31.5.2006. However, he has filed the present writ petition, before this Court, only on 14.6.2010. There is no proper explanation for the delay in filing the present writ petition before this Court. As such, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed, without going into the merits of the matter, on the ground of laches. Hence, it is dismissed. No costs.