Judgment :- 1. The prayer in this writ petition is as follows:- “Therefore, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus or any other order or direction in the nature of Writ, calling for records pertaining to the impugned order in Ku.No.6432/2008/A2 5, dated 05.01.2009 on the file of the respondent No.2 and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the respondent No.2 refix the petitioner's original seniority by regularising the service period of four days from 27.11.1997 to 30.11.1997 and to accord him promotion to the Post of Road Inspector with effect from 26.09.2008 with all consequential benefits and pass such further order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case and thus render justice. 2. The case of the petitioner is that he was appointed as 'Road Worker' on 13.11.1997 temporarily at the office of the 2nd respondent. On 26.11.1997, he was directed by the 3rd respondent to assist the work between Myladi and Marungur road. At the time of cleaning the road, the petitioner was attacked by one Isravel and therefore, he was admitted in the Government Hospital on 27.11.1997. A police complaint was also lodged by the petitioner. He was discharged from the hospital on 30.11.1997. The second respondent treated those 4 days as period of absence and not treated the same as period of service, while his service was regularised on 06.01.1999 only with effect from 17.11.1998. Therefore, the petitioner lost his original seniority and consequently, his name was placed in serial No.10 instead of serial No.2. In view of the said position, his juniors were promoted as 'Road Inspector'. Therefore, the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court in W.P.(MD)No.9850 of 2008 to consider his name for promotion as 'Road Inspector'. On 05.11.2008, this court passed an order directing the 2nd respondent to consider the representation of the petitioner, dated 17.09.2008. Thereafter, the present impugned order came to be passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner to treat the said four days as period of service. 3. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the petitioner was appointed through the proceedings of the Divisional Engineer, dated 03.11.1997 and he joined in service on 13.11.1997. Thereafter, the present impugned order came to be passed rejecting the claim of the petitioner to treat the said four days as period of service. 3. The second respondent filed a counter affidavit, in which it is stated that the petitioner was appointed through the proceedings of the Divisional Engineer, dated 03.11.1997 and he joined in service on 13.11.1997. His service was regularised on 17.11.1998, after completion of one year of service, through the proceedings, dated 06.01.1999. The petitioner had accepted the regularisation without any protest and to that effect, he had also made an endorsement in the proceedings. Now, after 11 years of period, the petitioner cannot complain against the non-inclusion of those four days. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is entitled to challenge the non inclusion of those four days in his service period, when his right to be considered for promotion is denied. Therefore, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, there is no delay on the part of the petitioner in approaching this court. 5. Per contra, the learned Additional Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to any indulgence from this court, in view of the fact that he has not raised any objection at the time regularisation of his service and so, he cannot raise objection now after a period of 11 years. 6. Heard the learned counsels appearing for the respective parties. 7. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed as 'Road worker' on temporary basis through the proceedings, dated 03.11.1997 of the second respondent and the petitioner joined the service on 13.11.1997. It is also the fact that his service was regularised through the proceedings, dated 06.1.1999 with effect from 17.11.1998. Therefore, the petitioner's service was regularised on completion of one year with effect from 17.11.1998 by the proceedings, dated 06.01.1999, which has not been challenged by the petitioner so far, by claiming that his service ought to have been regularised with effect from 17.11.1999 and not from 17.11.1998. 8. A perusal of the impugned order further shows that the petitioner had not raised any objection with regard to the regularisation of his service with effect from 17.11.1998 and on the other hand, he had specifically made an endorsement that all the entries made in the Service Register are correct and no particulars are left out. 8. A perusal of the impugned order further shows that the petitioner had not raised any objection with regard to the regularisation of his service with effect from 17.11.1998 and on the other hand, he had specifically made an endorsement that all the entries made in the Service Register are correct and no particulars are left out. Therefore, when the petitioner has kept quite and allowed the regularisation order to become final, that too as early as in the year 1998 itself, he cannot now come and canvass the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the 2nd respondent, which is impugned in this writ petition, which in effect is only a consequential proceedings by taking note of the service details of the petitioner. 9. It is also to be seen that the petitioner had kept quite for all these years and has filed the present writ petition only in the year 2009 i.e., nearly after 11 years. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in many decisions and more particularly, in a decision reported in 2008(14) SCC 295, [Eastern Coalfields Limited vs. Dugal Kumar] that the discretionary relief under Article 226 cannot be exercised, when there is an inordinate delay or laches on the part of the petitioner in approaching the court. In the said case, there was a delay of 10 years. Moreover, when the petitioner has not challenged the original order of regularisation passed in the year 1999, he cannot be permitted to challenge the present consequential order. 10. At this juncture, it is useful to refer the decision of the Supreme Court reported in 2010(1) SCC 756 , [Edukanti Kistamma (Dead) through Lrs & others vs. S. Venkatareddy (Dead) through Lrs. and others] in which the Hon'ble Apex court has held that consequential order cannot be challenged without challenging the basic order. 11. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case as well as by following the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as stated supra, I find no merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed. No costs.