JUDGMENT : Akshaya Kumar Rath, J. 1. In this writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the promotion of opposite party Nos. 3 to 10 to the post of Senior Assistants, inter alia, on the ground that they are juniors to the petitioners and to promote them to the post of Senior Assistants with effect from the date on which the opposite party Nos. 3 to 10 were promoted. Adumbrated in brief the case of the petitioners is that pursuant to the interview they were appointed as Junior Assistants by the Orissa Power Generation Corporation Limited-opposite party No. 1 on regular basis with effect from 25.09.1989, 25.09.1989, 25.09.1989, 25.09.1989, 27.09.1989 and 30.09.1989 respectively. They are discharging their duties to the utmost satisfaction of the authorities concerned. The further case of the petitioners is that opposite party Nos. 3 to 9 had initially joined under opposite party No. 1 on NMR basis without following the due selection process. But then their services were regularized as Jr. Assistants with effect from 12.07.1990, 12.12.1990, 28.09.1991, 28.09.1991, 28.09.1991, 30.09.1991, 1.10.1991 and 1.10.1991 respectively. It is further stated that the post of Junior Assistant is the feeder post for promotion to the grade of Senior Assistant. The Orissa Power Generation Corporation Limited-opposite party No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as "OPGC") and the General Manager (P & A), OPGC-opposite party No. 2 have not framed any Rules to regulate the method and manner for promotion to the higher grade. In the absence of any Rules, seniority becomes the sole criteria for promotion to the higher post. It is further stated that opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 vide office order No. 865 dated 29.01.1994 promoted opposite party Nos. 3 to 9 to the post of Sr. Assistants provisionally for a period of one year without considering the case of petitioners promotion to the said post. While promoting the opposite party Nos. 3 to 9, no gradation list was prepared. It is further stated that though promotion under Annexure-1 was made provisionally for a period of one year, but then after completion of one year, opposite party Nos. 3 to 9 have continued in the post of Senior Assistants. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 made a representation to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. It is further stated that though promotion under Annexure-1 was made provisionally for a period of one year, but then after completion of one year, opposite party Nos. 3 to 9 have continued in the post of Senior Assistants. Thereafter, the petitioner No. 1 made a representation to opposite party Nos. 1 and 2. The Senior Assistant General Manager (Personnel) vide order dated 5.08.1996 under Annexure-2 informed petitioner No. 1 that the Grievance Committee had decided to consider his case in due course of time. It is further stated that opposite party No. 10 initially entered into Corporation service through back door method without facing any interview and joined in the Orissa Power General Corporation on 11.09.1993. In order to regularize his service, records were prepared from the retrospective date and his service was regularized as a Jr. Assistant with effect from 1.10.1992 though on the said date he had not joined in the Corporation (OPGC). 2. Pursuant to issuance of notice, opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 have entered appearance and filed a counter affidavit. The case of the opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 is that the OPGC was incorporated in the year 1984. The Corporate Office of OPGC situates at Bhubaneswar and the power generating units i.e., Ib Thermal Power Station (for the sake of brevity "ITPS") are located at Banharpalli in the district of Jharsuguda. Opposite party Nos. 3 and 5 to 9 were engaged on NMR basis in the year 1985, 1986 & 1987 respectively at ITPS, when the construction of the project was started. The opposite party No. 4 being a land oustee was absorbed in the regular cadre of Junior Assistant on 12.12.1990 as a part of rehabilitation policy. Since the project activities were coordinated and monitored from the Corporate Office, Bhubaneswar, NMR employees were also engaged at the Corporate Office to cater to the increased work load. Some of the NMR employees engaged in the Corporate Office were regularized during the year 1989. Subsequently depending on the progress in the project activities some NMR employees including the opposite party Nos. 3 and 5 to 9 were regularized in the year 1990 and 1991 against the sanctioned vacancies. Since there was resentment among the NMR employees engaged at the ITPS, the OPGC considered to regularize the services of opposite party Nos. 3 and 5 to 9. 3 and 5 to 9 were regularized in the year 1990 and 1991 against the sanctioned vacancies. Since there was resentment among the NMR employees engaged at the ITPS, the OPGC considered to regularize the services of opposite party Nos. 3 and 5 to 9. It is further stated that opposite party Nos. 3 to 9 are land-oustees and affected local people of the project site. Further case of opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 is that though no Rules for promotion were framed by the OPGC, the promotions were effected on such basis as were deemed just and equitable under the circumstances prevailing then. It is further stated that when the project work of the ITPS was on the verge of completion, the Board in its 52nd meeting held on 5.01.1994 decided to give promotion from the grade of Junior Assistant to the grade of Senior Assistant. The DPC constituted for considering the promotional cases of Junior Assistant decided that the period of service as NMR by various employees will be taken into account so far as seniority is concerned. It was further resolved that the need of including NMR period of service of the employees in view of the fact that the Site Office, which is the hub of the project activities initially recruited a number of persons in the year 1986 on ad hoc basis and thereafter their services had been regularized during the year 1991, whereas the persons recruited in the Corporate Office during the year 1987 had been regularized in the year 1989. The Board further resolved that in recognition of long record of services by the NMR employees they were to be considered for promotion taking into account the services rendered by the said NMR employees. It is further stated that in accordance with the principle decided by the DPC, the NMR period of the employees were taken into account for determining the seniority. So far as opposite party No. 10 is concerned, it is stated that he had faced the interview along with other candidates whose names were sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Khurda. Opposite party No. 10 joined the OPGC on 18.07.1990 on ad hoc basis with a consolidated salary and he was subsequently appointed as Junior Assistant on 1.10.1991. So far as opposite party No. 10 is concerned, it is stated that he had faced the interview along with other candidates whose names were sponsored by the District Employment Exchange, Khurda. Opposite party No. 10 joined the OPGC on 18.07.1990 on ad hoc basis with a consolidated salary and he was subsequently appointed as Junior Assistant on 1.10.1991. Much emphasis has been laid in the counter that the promotion to the post of Senior Assistant was effected on a just and equitable basis and as such the grievance of the petitioners does not deserve any consideration. In spite of valid service of notices, none appeared for opposite party Nos. 3 to 10. 3. In course of hearing Mr., S. Ray, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that opposite party Nos. 3 to 10 are appointed as Junior Assistants at the later point of time than that of the petitioners and as such they are juniors. He further submitted that the OPGC committed illegality in promoting the Junior Assistants to the post of Senior Assistants ignoring the case of the petitioners. Mr. Ray placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka and others v. Umadevi and others, AIR 2006 SC 1806 and in the case of K. Madalaimuthu and another v. State of Tamil Nadu and others, AIR 2006 SC 2662 . 4. Mr. P.N. Mohaptra, learned counsel for opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 submitted that though opposite party Nos. 3 and 5 to 9 were engaged on NMR basis in the year 1985, 1986 and 1987 at ITPS, but their services were regularized in the year 1990 and 1991 against the sanctioned vacancies. He further submitted that since the project activities were coordinated and monitored from the Corporate Office at Bhubaneswar, the NMR employees were engaged at the Corporate Office. Some of the NMR employees engaged at the Corporate Office were regularized during the year 1989 and as such there was resentment amongst the NMR employees at IPTS, hence, the OPGC considered for regularizing the services of the NMR employees including opposite party Nos. 3 and 5 to 9. Mr. Mohapatra further submitted that the DPC in its meeting held on 5.01.1994 took a decision to take into account the period of services of the NMR employees towards their seniority for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. 3 and 5 to 9. Mr. Mohapatra further submitted that the DPC in its meeting held on 5.01.1994 took a decision to take into account the period of services of the NMR employees towards their seniority for promotion to the post of Senior Assistant. He further submitted that promotion was made to the post of Senior Assistant on a just and equitable basis. He also submitted that the promotion of the opposite party Nos. 3 to 10 were made on 29.01.1394 vide Annexure-1. However, the writ application was filed after a lapse of four years and there is no satisfactory explanation of the petitioners as to why they approached this Court after a long lapse of time. He cited the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others, (Civil Appeal Nos. 7328-7329 of 2013), to buttress the submission that though there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet ordinarily a writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time and that a person aggrieved by an order of promoting a junior over his head should approach the Court at least within six months or at the most a year of such promotion. Mr. Mohapatra further cited the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S. Sumnyan and others v. Limi Niri and others, AIR 2010 SC 2159 and submitted that while promoting a person to higher post, the NMR period of service should be taken into account. 5. On the rival pleadings of the parties, really two points arise for our consideration: (i) Whether there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution India? (ii) Whether the services rendered by the opposite parties 3 to 10 as NMR employees would be counted towards seniority for the purpose of promotion to the higher post? 6. There is no period of limitation for filing a writ application under the Constitution of India, but then a writ application should be filed within a reasonable time. (ii) Whether the services rendered by the opposite parties 3 to 10 as NMR employees would be counted towards seniority for the purpose of promotion to the higher post? 6. There is no period of limitation for filing a writ application under the Constitution of India, but then a writ application should be filed within a reasonable time. In Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari case, the respondents had filed a claim petition before the Public Services Tribunal of Uttarakhand at Dehradun claiming that they were entitled to promotion from SAS Group III to SAS Group II with effect from 15.11.1983, the date on which the junior was promoted. On a bare reading of the said judgment it is crystal clear that the promotion was made on 15.11.1983 but application filed after lapse of twenty years. In the facts and circumstances of that case, their Lordships held that it would be a sound and wise exercise of discretion for the Courts to refuse to exercise their extraordinary powers under Article 226 in the case of persons who do not approach it expeditiously for relief and who stand by and allow things to happen and then approach the Court to put forward stale claims and try to unsettle settled matters. 7. In the instant case promotion was made on 29.01.1994 vide Annexure-1. On the basis of representation dated 29.03.1996 filed by petitioner No. 1, on 5.08.1996 the OPGC intimated him that the Grievance Committee had decided to consider his case in due course of time vide Annexure-2. The writ application was filed on 30.10.1998. Thus, it cannot be said that there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioners to approach this Court. Therefore, the first point is answered in favour of the petitioners. 8. In Umadevi's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 39 held as follows: 39." xxx xxx xxx. Those who are working on daily wages formed a class by themselves, they cannot claim that they are discriminated as against those who have been regularly recruited on the basis of the relevant rules. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wages to claim that such employee should be treated on a par with a regularly recruited candidate, and made permanent in employment even assuming that the principle could be invoked for claiming equal wages for equal work. There is no fundamental right in those who have been employed on daily wages or temporarily or on contractual basis, to claim that they have a right to be absorbed in service. As has been held by this Court, they cannot be said to be holders of a post, since, a regular appointment could be made only by making appointments consistent with the requirements of Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution. The right to be treated equal with the other employees employed on daily wages, cannot be extended to a claim for equally treatment with those who were regularly employed. That would be treating un-equals as equals. It cannot also be relied on to claim a right to be absorbed in service even though they have never been selected in terms of the relevant recruitment rules. The arguments based on Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are therefore overruled." In K. Madalaimuthu's case (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 24 held as follows: 24. "xxx xxx xxx. It stands to reason that a person, who is appointed temporarily to discharge the functions in a particular post without recourse to the recruitment rules, cannot be said to be in service till such time as his appointment is regularized. It, therefore, follows that it is only from the date on which his services are regularized that such appointee can count his seniority in the cadre." 9. The principle enunciated in the aforesaid decisions applies with full force to the facts and circumstances of this case. The ratio lard down in S. Sumnyan's case (supra) has no application to the present case inasmuch as in the facts and circumstances of said case, the judgment was rendered. 10. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions cited supra, we have examined the case at hand. There is no dispute that opposite party Nos. 10. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decisions cited supra, we have examined the case at hand. There is no dispute that opposite party Nos. 3 to 10 were appointed on NMR basis without following regular selection process and were regularized in the post of Junior Assistants with effect from 12.07.1990, 12.12.1990, 28.09.1991, 28.09.1991, 28.09.1991, 30.09.1991, 1.10.1991 and 1.10.1991 respectively, i.e., at a later point of time than that of the petitioners. They cannot, by no stretch of imagination, to be in service till such time their appointments were regularized. It is only from the date on which their services are regularized, their seniority in the cadre is to be counted. Opposite parties 3 to 10, who were working on NMR basis formed a class by themselves. No right can be founded on an employment on daily wage basis to claim that such employees should be treated at par with a regularly recruited candidates. They cannot be said to be holder of posts. 11. In view of the above, the promotion of opposite party Nos. 3 to 10 to the post of Senior Assistant vide Annexure-1 is quashed and the OPGC is directed to promote the petitioners with effect from 29.01.1994, the date on which opposite party Nos. 3 to 10 were promoted. We make it clear that petitioners will not be entitled to get any arrear salary. The said period shall be counted towards their seniority and other retiral benefits. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. M.M. Das, J. I agree.