Judgment: Sujoy Paul, J.;- 1. Heard. The petitioner has called in question the order dated 21.11.2000 whereby her services were terminated. Shri Vivek Jain submits that as per Rule 12 (3) of the Madhya Pradesh Ashaskiya Shishan Sanstha (Adhyapakon Tatha Anya Karmachariyon Ko Padachyut Karne Sewa Se Hatane Sambandhi Prakriya) Niyam, 1983, the management could not have terminated her services. He fairly admits that at the time of petitioner's termination, the rules were in force. He submits that order Annexure P-1 runs contrary to rules and is nullity in the eyes of law. In addition, Shri Jain submits that another similarly situated employee was also terminated, filed W.P. No. 5752/2007 before this Court which was decided vide Annexure P-2 and the petitioner is similarly situated. 2. The prayer is opposed by the other side. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner on this aspect. 4. The petitioner in para 4 of the petition has stated that there is no delay in filing the petition. The petitioner was terminated way back on 21.4.2000. This petition is filed almost after 13 years. The bone of contention of Shri Jain is that the order is a nullity. In my opinion, even if it is a void order, firstly it needs to be challenged and secondly challenge must be within the reasonable time. 5. The Apex Court opined that even a void order needs to be challenged by seeking appropriate proceedings. This view is taken in (1996) 6 SCC 444 (Ram Niwas Todi and Another Vs. Bibi Jabrunnissa and others), which reads as under:- The order or action, if ultra vires the power, becomes void and it does not confer any right. But the action need not necessarily be set at naught in all events. Though the order may be void, if the party does not approach the Court within reasonable time, which is always a question of fact and have the order invalidated or acquiesced or waived, the discretion of the Court has to be exercised in a reasonable manner. 6. So far the judgment of another case is concerned, even that judgment was delivered in 2009. There is no explanation of delay from 2009 till date. A person who is sitting tight over a decade cannot seek limitation on the basis of judgment of another case. 6. So far the judgment of another case is concerned, even that judgment was delivered in 2009. There is no explanation of delay from 2009 till date. A person who is sitting tight over a decade cannot seek limitation on the basis of judgment of another case. This view is taken by the Supreme Court in (2011) 3 SCC 436 (State of Orissa and another Vs. Mamta Mohanty). The relevant portion of this judgment reads as under:- This Court has consistently rejected the contention that a petition should be considered ignoring the delay and laches in case the petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by the Court in a similar case as the same cannot furnish a proper explanation for delay and laches. A litigant cannot wake up from deep slumber and claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached the Court within a reasonable time. 7. In the light of aforesaid, the petition suffers from delay and laches and liable to be dismissed on that ground alone. Petition is accordingly dismissed. No cost.