JUDGMENT : P.S. RANA, J. 1. Present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is pleaded that petitioner was working continuously in the regular establishment of HP State Electricity Board (HPSEB) from the date of his initial engagement w.e.f. 21.12.1984 till his services were regularized in the year 1992. It is pleaded that petitioner was not a daily wage employee but petitioner was temporary employee in the regular establishment and he is legally entitled for the pay and allowances at par with the temporary employees. It is pleaded that entire services of the petitioner be counted for the purpose of pension, gratuity and other service benefits and entire arrears be ordered to be paid to petitioner. Prayer for acceptance of petition sought. 2. Per contra reply filed on behalf of respondents pleaded therein that writ petition is not maintainable. It is pleaded that petition suffers from delay and laches and the same is barred by limitation. It is pleaded that petitioner was engaged on daily wages and worked w.e.f. 21.12.1984 to 13.2.1992. It is pleaded that thereafter the services of the petitioner were regularized on 14.2.1992. It is pleaded that petitioner is estopped to file present petition in view of his act and conduct and acquiescence. It is pleaded that petitioner was engaged as lower division Clerk on daily wages w.e.f. 21.12.1984 and thereafter petitioner was regularized on and w.e.f. 14.2.1992. Prayer for dismissal of petition sought. 3. Court heard learned Advocate appearing on behalf of petitioner 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 twenty one 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 petitioner that service of petitioner be treated w.e.f 21.12.1984 to 13.2.1992 for pay fixation, pension, gratuity and other service benefits is rejected being devoid of any force for the reason hereinafter mentioned. In the present case petitioner was regularized on dated 14.2.1992. Petitioner filed present petition on dated 2.4.2013 after a gap of twenty one years for fixation of pay scale relating to his service tenure. In the present case petitioner was regularized on dated 14.2.1992. Petitioner filed present petition on dated 2.4.2013 after a gap of twenty one years for fixation of pay scale relating to his service tenure. No plausible explanation given by petitioner for filing present civil writ petition at belated stage from the date of cause of action. 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 State of Himachal Pradesh that delay is important factor in writ petition and it was held that delay defeat the equity. It was further held that delay could not be brushed aside without plausible explanation. In the present case petitioner did not place on record any document in order to prove that he had filed any representation before competent authority of law for redressal of his grievance in order to condone delay. 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 petitioner and in favour of 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 on the concept of delay, laches and acquiescence. Vs. State of Haryana. Hence point No.1 is decided against the petitioner and in favour of 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 on the concept of delay, laches and acquiescence. In the present case delay of more than twenty one 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.