ORDER : D.N. Patel, J.: 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 584 of 2008 dated 5th March, 2014 whereby the writ petition preferred by these appellants has been dismissed and hence, the original petitioners have preferred this Letters Patent Appeal. 2. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the appellants were appointed as Clerk in the year, 1988 and their services were terminated on 11th January, 1989. The original petitioner no.1 preferred writ petition before the Hon'ble Patna High Court bearing C.W.J.C. No. 6819 of 1991 and by the order of the Patna High Court dated 23rd November, 1992 the matter was remanded for afresh decision. Again the order of termination was confirmed by the State Authorities vide order dated 7th December, 1993. This order was challenged by these appellants in W.P.(S) No. 4188 of 2004 which was dismissed vide order dated 1st September, 2004 and instead of filing Letters Patent Appeal another writ petition was preferred by these appellants bearing W.P.(S) No. 584 of 2008 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 5th March, 2014 and therefore, the present Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred. 3. Counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that it is true that the order of termination of the original petitioners dated 07.12.1993 was challenged and it is also true that this very appellants have preferred the writ petition being WP.(S) No. 4188 of 2004 which was disposed of vide order dated 01.09.2004 and again they have preferred another writ petition mainly for the reason that another employee (who is not similarly situated like the present appellants) had challenged his termination order because he had worked for 10 years in the government services. That employee viz. Sadanand Thakur filed writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1752 of 2001 which was decided by the Jharkhand High Court vide order dated 10th March, 2003. That employee viz. Sadanand Thakur filed writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 1752 of 2001 which was decided by the Jharkhand High Court vide order dated 10th March, 2003. This writ petition filed by Sadanand Thakur (as per counsel for these appellants, Sadanand Thakur is not similarly situated employee like these appellants) allowed, against which the State preferred L.P.A. No. 397 of 2003, which was dismissed, against which the State preferred S.L.P. before the Hon'ble Supreme Court bearing No.18356 of 2005, which was dismissed by Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated 05.09.2005/12.9.2005 and that Sadanand Thakur was reinstated into the government services vide order dated 15th September, 2005 and therefore, though earlier writ petition was dismissed of these very appellants they preferred another writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 584 of 2008. Counsel for the appellants submitted that the benefit obtained by Sadanand Thakur may also be extended upon these appellants. 4. Counsel for the State has opposed this Letters Patent Appeal and has submitted that no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition because these appellants have challenged the order of termination dated 07.12.1993 after approximately 15 years. Moreover, if Sadanand Thakur is not similarity situated employee, even as per the arguments canvassed by the counsel for these appellants, there is no question of a comparison between Sadanand Thakur and these appellants whatsoever arises because Sadanand Thakur, as per the arguments canvassed by the counsel for the appellants, had worked for 10 years and therefore, no benefit of the order passed in the matter of Sadanand Thakur may be given to these appellants. 5. It is further submitted by the counsel for the State that even otherwise also, these appellants had previously preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4188 of 2004 and no relief was granted by this Court by passing the order dated 1st September, 2004 and therefore, again the writ petition cannot be preferred by these appellants for the very same cause of action and hence, also these Letters Patent Appeal may not be entertained by this Court. Reasons: 6. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) These appellants were appointed as Clerk in the year 1988. Their appointments were backdoor entry. Reasons: 6. Having heard counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Letters Patent Appeal mainly for the following facts and reasons: (i) These appellants were appointed as Clerk in the year 1988. Their appointments were backdoor entry. Their services were terminated on 11th January, 1989 thereafter, the original petitioner no. 1 had preferred writ petition being C.W.J.C. No. 6819 of 1991 and the original petitioner no.2 had preferred intervention application. Ultimately, Hon'ble Patna High Court remanded the matter for its afresh decision vide order dated 23rd November, 1992. (ii) In the erstwhile State of Bihar again the decision was taken by the Government and the order of termination dated 11th January, 1989 was reaffirmed or confirmed vide another order dated 7th December, 1993. Thereafter both these appellants (original petitioners) preferred another writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4188 of 2004. In that writ petition there was a reference about termination order of these appellants which was passed on 07.12.1993 at more than one place in the said writ petition, but, no order was passed in favour of these appellants and finally it was disposed of vide order dated 1st September, 2004. (iii) Thus, it appears that these appellants though were referring that termination order dated 7th December, 1993 in their earlier writ petition bearing W.P.(S) No. 4188 of 2004, never the said termination order was challenged by them. There was a conspicuous silence and now after 15 long years these appellants have preferred the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 584 of 2008 and the order of termination dated 07.12.1993 is now challenged after long lapse time of 15 years. There is no explanation worth the name for causing such a delay in memo of the writ petition hence, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing the writ petition preferred by these appellants mainly on the ground of delay and latches. It ought to be kept in mind that the law helps those who are vigilant. This principle is based on 4. presumption that if for 15 long years after that termination of the services and even if earlier writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4188 of 2004 was preferred by these very appellants never they have challenged the order of termination dated 07.12.1993. This principle is based on 4. presumption that if for 15 long years after that termination of the services and even if earlier writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4188 of 2004 was preferred by these very appellants never they have challenged the order of termination dated 07.12.1993. The presumption is that they are satisfied with the termination order. Moreover, during the period of this 15 long period the respondent government has also acted upon the silence of these appellants that as they are satisfied about that termination order, others might have been appointed in 15 long years. Everything cannot be upset by this Court which is otherwise settled during this period of one and half decade. Those other persons will have to be disturbed if this type of much belated writ petitions are entertained by this Court. As and when a petition is preferred after gross delay it causes lot of practical difficulties to the government as well as to those employees who have already employed into the services. Long unexplained delay on the part of the petitioners and especially when during the intervening period one more writ petition was preferred by these very appellants and in that writ petition order of termination was never challenged. In this situation long unexplained delay is always fatal. This aspect of the matter has been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge. (iv) Moreover, the so called explanation given by the counsel for the appellants for causing delay in preferring the writ petition is that one employee viz. Sadanand Thakur had preferred a writ petition who was also terminated, he succeeded in his writ petition and the L.P.A. and the S.L.P. preferred by the State was dismissed. The number and the dates have already been mentioned hereinabove, but, when we asked for the counsel for the appellants that what is similarity between Sadanand Thakur and these appellants, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that they are not similar. Sadanand Thakur has served for 10 years whereas, these appellants have not. The number and the dates have already been mentioned hereinabove, but, when we asked for the counsel for the appellants that what is similarity between Sadanand Thakur and these appellants, it is submitted by the counsel for the appellants that they are not similar. Sadanand Thakur has served for 10 years whereas, these appellants have not. Be as it may, but, the fact remains that if the counsel for the appellants is arguing that there is dissimilarity between the case of Sadanand Thakur and the case of these appellants, there is no question of relying upon the decisions in the case of Sadanand Thakur and therefore, it cannot be a cause for condonation of delay of 15 long years. Moreover, there is one more fallacy in this argument because the termination of the services of these appellants were again confirmed vide order dated 07.12.1993. At that time, they were not knowing that one Sadanand Thakur will file a petition in the year 2001 and he will succeed upto Hon'ble Supreme Court. In fact, Sadanand Thakur preferred a writ petition in the year 2001 otherwise, the original petitioners had never challenged the order of termination dated 07.12.1993. This Sadanand Thakur's matter has nothing to do with the matter of these appellants. Even his termination order is of the year 2001 wherein the present appellants (original petitioners) termination order is dated 07.12.1993. Thus, these appellants have nothing to do with Sadanand Thakur's case and just for the sake of argument this argument has been canvassed. 7. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts and reasons, no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge in deciding the writ petition and we see no reason to take any deviation from the conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. There is no substance in this Letters Patent Appeal and hence, the same is hereby, dismissed.