JUDGMENT : P.S. RANA, J. 1. Present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pleaded that petitioners were appointed as temporary employees in the permanent establishment w.e.f. 1.11.1986 and 13.12.1985 respectively. It is pleaded that services of the petitioners were brought on work charge establishment w.e.f. 3.1.1998 and thereafter petitioners were retired from service. It is pleaded that period of service rendered by the petitioners from the dates of their joining till their regularization w.e.f. 3.1.1998 be treated as service for the purpose of pay fixation, increments and other service allowances and for purpose of pensionary benefits. Prayer for acceptance of petition sought. 2. Per contra reply filed on behalf of the respondents pleaded therein that writ petition suffers from delay and laches. It is pleaded that writ petition has been filed after a lapse of fifteen years from the date of cause of action. It is pleaded that petitioners are estopped to file present petition due to their act and conduct. It is pleaded that petitioners were offered the post of T-Mate on work charge basis vide offer dated 2.1.1998 and the said offer was accepted by the petitioners. It is pleaded that petitioners were engaged on daily wage basis and thereafter respondent-Board regularized the daily wage workmen on various categories against the available vacancies. It is pleaded that petitioners were regularized on 3.1.1998. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioners and learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondents and also perused the record carefully. 4. Following points arise for determination in the present writ petition: (1) Whether relief is barred after fifteen years from date of cause of action on the concept of delay, laches and acquiescence as alleged? (2) Final order. Finding upon point No.1. 5. Submission of learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioners that services of the petitioners be counted w.e.f. 1.11.1986 and 13.12.1985 till their services were regularized on dated 3.1.1998 for the purpose of pay fixation, increments and pensionary benefits is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. It is proved on record that offers were given to the petitioners for the post of T-Mates on work charge status and petitioners have accepted the post of T-Mates on work charge status in the year 1998. It is proved on record that offers were given to the petitioners for the post of T-Mates on work charge status and petitioners have accepted the post of T-Mates on work charge status in the year 1998. It is well settled law that there is difference between the status of work charge employee and the status of temporary employee. It is well settled law that the services of the work charge employee would automatically come to an end after the completion of specific work. It is proved on record that petitioners themselves have accepted the post of T-Mates on work charge status and thereafter petitioners have also received the salary of T-Mates on work charge status. Petitioners did not challenge the post of T-Mates on work charge status for about fifteen years. It was held in case reported in 1976 (1) Service Law Reporter 53 titled P.S.Sadasivaswamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu (Apex Court of India) that relief should be declined to the petitioner if writ petition is not filed expeditiously. It was held that normally writ petition should be filed within six months or at the most within one year after the arisen of cause action. It was held in case reported in 2014 (Suppl.) Him L.R. (DB) 2422 titled Satija Rajesh Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and others that delay is important factor in writ petition and it was held that delay defeats equity and it was also held that delay should not be brushed aside without plausible explanation. It was held that principle of waiver and estoppel also applies in the writ petition. Petitioners did not challenge their status even after the regularization of their services on dated 3.1.1998. Petitioners have challenged their status of service on dated 29.7.2013 after a gap of more than fifteen years. It was held in case reported in AIR 2014 Patna 208 (Full Bench) titled State of Bihar and another Vs. Bhagwan Singh that service rendered by government employee as daily wages could not be counted for pension benefit. It was held that service of employee for pension benefit would be calculated from the date of appointment of the employee upon the substantive post. Petitioners did not challenge their status of service w.e.f. 3.1.1998 till 29.7.2013. No plausible explanation given by petitioners for filing of present writ petition after more than fifteen years after cause of action. It was held that service of employee for pension benefit would be calculated from the date of appointment of the employee upon the substantive post. Petitioners did not challenge their status of service w.e.f. 3.1.1998 till 29.7.2013. No plausible explanation given by petitioners for filing of present writ petition after more than fifteen years after cause of action. There is no evidence on record in order to prove that petitioners have also filed any representation before competent authority of law for redressal of their grievance w.e.f. 3.1.1998 to 29.7.2013. Hence it is held that it is not expedient in the ends of justice to grant relief to the petitioners on the concept of delay, laches and acquiescence. It was held in case reported in AIR 1989 SC 674 titled M/s Rup Diamonds and others Vs. Union of India that Court has consistently rejected the contention that petition should be considered ignoring delay and laches in case petitioner approaches the Court after coming to know of the relief granted by Court in similar case. It was held that the same is not proper explanation of delay and laches. It was held that litigant could not wake up from deep slumber and could not claim impetus from the judgment in cases where some diligent person had approached within reasonable time. See 1996 (6) SCC 267 titled State of Karnataka and others Vs. S.M.Kotrayya and others See AIR 1997 SC 2366 titled Jagdish Lal and others Vs. Vs. State of Haryana. Hence point No.1 is decided against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents. Final Order. 6. In view of my findings upon point No.1 civil writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is dismissed and relief sought is declined on the concept of delay, laches and acquiescence after fifteen years from date of cause of action. In the present case delay of more than fifteen years is writ large from the date of cause of action. No order as to costs. Writ petition disposed of Pending application (s) if any are also disposed of.