JUDGMENT : Daya Chaudhary, J. The grievance of the petitioner in the present petition is that he was working with the respondent-department. His services were terminated on 13.03.2011. A prayer has also been made to regularize his services as per notification dated 18.03.2011 issued by the State Government. 2. As per stand of the petitioner, his services were terminated in the year, 2011 and thereafter, he was reinstated but the benefits of his past service have not been granted to him. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the seniority list, where the name of the present petitioner was reflected but as per stand of the respondent-department, the name of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned in the seniority list and it was rectified subsequently. As per case of the petitioner, he was working with the respondent-department, whereas, as per stand of the respondent-department, the petitioner was not working. The petitioner is claiming reinstatement and regularization, whereas, his services were terminated in the year, 2011. 4. Disputed questions of facts are there with regard to appointment and termination which cannot be determined in the writ petition. Moreover, there is also delay as services of the petitioner were terminated on 13.03.2011. 5. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 6. However, the petitioner is at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy, if any.