JUDGMENT The respondent filed a Writ petition on or about 08.01.2013 seeking the following reliefs: - "a) A writ, order or direction in the nature of MANDAMUS directing the opp. Parties to give the benefits of judgment and order dated 19.08.2006 passed by this Hon'ble court in writ petition No. 4031 (SS) of 2001 (Sri Pratap Narayan Pandey vs. State of U.P. And others) to the petitioners, and also permit the petitioners to join their duties on the post of Collection Amin with immediate effect and give seniority and other consequential benefits to them from the date of their appointment i.e. in the year 1986. b) Any other suitable order or direction which this Hon'ble court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. c) Allow the writ petition with cost in favour of the petitioner." 2. In the writ petition, the respondent-petitioner averred that an advertisement was issued in the year 1986 for appointment of regular Collection Amin. The respondent-petitioner also applied for consideration in pursuance thereof. A select list was prepared of 186 candidates wherein his name figured at sl. no. 104. The candidates joined in pursuance of appointment letters issued. However, they were not treated as a regular collection Amin but as Seasonal Collection Amin. The respondent-petitioner also worked as such w.e.f. 1986 till 1989 when the appellants started giving him artificial break in service and engaged him during the Fasli seasons for the purposes of recovery. 3. In paragraph 21 of the writ petition it was averred that the respondent-petitioner and others filed various writ petitions before this Court seeking a direction to the appellants-opposite parties to take work from them regularly and to regularize them on the post of Collection Amin and certain directions were issued from time to time in this regard, however, the details of such proceedings and the orders passed therein have not been disclosed nor annexed. 4. In the writ petition the respondent-petitioner claimed that one Pratap Narain Pandey had filed a writ petition in 1990 (Writ Petition No. 10539 (SS) of 1990) and another writ petition in 2001 (Writ Petition No. 4031(SS) of 2001) which were allowed on 19.08.2006. 4. In the writ petition the respondent-petitioner claimed that one Pratap Narain Pandey had filed a writ petition in 1990 (Writ Petition No. 10539 (SS) of 1990) and another writ petition in 2001 (Writ Petition No. 4031(SS) of 2001) which were allowed on 19.08.2006. Other writ petitions (Writ Petition No.8672 (SS) of 2006: - Lal Mani Pandey vs. State of U.P. and others) and writ petition (Writ Petition No. 9482 (SS) of 2006: - Devesh Pratap Singh vs. State of U.P. and others) were also filed which were disposed of in terms of judgment in the case of Pratap Narayan Pandey's case. The respondent-petitioner claimed the benefit of the judgment in the case of Pratap Narayan Pandey on the ground of being similarly placed. 5. The writ petition filed by the respondent-petitioner was decided on 19.08.2014 with a direction to the respondent therein to verify the petitioner's status in comparison to the facts of the Pratap Narayan Pandey's case and take decision in the petitioner's matter within one month from the date of production of the certified copy of order. 6. The State came in appeal against the judgment and order dated 19.08.2014 on the ground that writ petition itself was highly belated, an aspect which has over-looked by the learned Single Judge. 7. The issue raised in the writ petition is no longer res-integra as a similar judgment passed in Writ Petition No.680 (SS) of 2015 (Dan Bahadur Singh vs. State of U.P. And others) involving same issue relating to the same selection has been set aside by this Court vide judgment dated 10.01.2016 passed in Special Appeal (Defective) No. 17 of 2016. The relevant extract of the said judgment is quoted below: - "In our view, the case of Pratap Narain Pandey is clearly distinguishable having due regard to the fact that in that case the candidate, who was aggrieved, had pursued his legal remedies with reasonable dispatch. The judgment of the learned Single Judge in Pratap Narain Pandey's case was delivered on 19 August 2006 in regard to two writ petitions. The first writ petition was filed by Pratap Narain Pandey as far back as in 1990 (Writ Petition No.10539 (S/S) of 1990). Apart from this writ petition, he had filed another writ petition in 2001 (Writ Petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001). The first writ petition was filed by Pratap Narain Pandey as far back as in 1990 (Writ Petition No.10539 (S/S) of 1990). Apart from this writ petition, he had filed another writ petition in 2001 (Writ Petition No.4031 (S/S) of 2001). Both the writ petitions had been clubbed together and were disposed of on 19 August 2006. On the other hand, the respondent filed his writ petition on 22 February 2015, seeking the benefit of the judgment and order dated 19 August 2006 delivered in the writ petition filed by Pratap Narain Pandey. By that judgment, the petitioner in the earlier proceedings was directed to be given appointment on the post of regular Collection Amin and to be treated as a regular Collection Amin in service since 5 June 1986 for the purposes of seniority etc. except the salary for the period for which he had not worked. In the writ petition which has been filed by the respondent before the learned Single Judge, there is absolutely no explanation much less a cogent explanation in regard to reasons which led the respondent to wait for nearly twenty nine years since 1986 before he filed a writ petition in 2015. The fact that other persons may have been granted the benefit of the judgment in Pratap Narain Pandey in the interregnum would not absolve the respondent of his own duty to explain why he chose to remain silent in the pursuit of his own rights. In a situation of this nature where a delay has been completely unexplained, a writ petition which was filed in 2015 seeking the benefit of parity with a case which had been decided in 2006 and where the petitioner in the earlier round had been vigilant enough in espousing his rights since 1990, could not have been entertained. There was evidently no parity with the case of Pratap Narain Pandey. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent has relied upon a judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 8 August 2014 in a batch of special appeals filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh (Special Appeal Defective No.110 of 2012 : State of Uttar Pradesh Vs Mohd. Usman Ansari) and connected cases). In that batch of cases, the learned Single Judge had granted the benefit of the decision in Pratap Narain Pandey in various writ petitions. Usman Ansari) and connected cases). In that batch of cases, the learned Single Judge had granted the benefit of the decision in Pratap Narain Pandey in various writ petitions. In fact, the judgment of the Division Bench would indicate that several of those writ petitions had been filed as far back as in 1991 (Writ Petition No.4587 (S/S) of 1991, Writ Petition No.6472 (S/S) of 1991 and Writ Petition No.3764 (S/S) of 1991) which had been decided by the learned Single Judges on 28 October 2010, 12 May 2010 and 12 May 2010 respectively. Those petitioners had again been vigilant enough to pursue their rights and the writ petitions had remained pending before this Court. Undoubtedly, one of those writ petitions in the batch (Writ Petition No.1595 (S/S) of 2008) had been dismissed on 26 March 2008 by a learned Single Judge on the ground of laches and the special appeal which had been filed by the State (Special Appeal No.311 of 2008) was disposed of by holding that the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of laches was erroneous in view of the submission of the learned Standing Counsel that the case was identical to Pratap Narain Pandey which had attained finality and that the benefit had been granted to other similarly situated persons. The case proceeded entirely on a concession which was made and it would appear that no effort was made on the part of the State even to submit before the Division Bench that there was a factual difference between the case at hand and in the case of Pratap Narain Pandey. The judgment of the Division Bench does not lay down the principle that a writ petition which had been filed without any cogent explanation for a delay, as in the present case, must still be entertained merely on the ground of the decision in Pratap Narain Pandey. Hence, the judgment of the Division Bench will not assist the case of the respondent." ..... ..... ...... ..... .... "In the present case, we find from the record that the writ petition which was filed by the respondent was without any explanation for the delay. The delay of nearly twenty nine years in filing the writ petition was completely unexplained. ..... ...... ..... .... "In the present case, we find from the record that the writ petition which was filed by the respondent was without any explanation for the delay. The delay of nearly twenty nine years in filing the writ petition was completely unexplained. Merely because certain other individuals have been granted the benefit in the meantime, would not justify such a writ petition having been entertained in 2015. Hence, we hold that the respondent's writ petition ought to have been dismissed only on the ground of laches. We, accordingly, allow the special appeal and set aside the impugned judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 26 February 2015. In consequence, the writ petition filed by the respondent (Service Single No.680 of 2015) shall stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs." 8. In the instant case the cause of action, if any, arose in favour of the respondent-petitioner in the year 1989. Though, the writ petition refers to certain proceedings having initiated by him but it does not disclose the details. Moreover as per averments contained in paragraph 21 of the writ petition, the proceedings were inter-alia for regularizing the services on the post of Collection Amin, yet surprisingly enough, the petitioner filed the writ petition in question i.e. (Writ Petition No. 333 (SS) of 2013) in the year 2013 seeking parity of the judgment of Pratap Narain Singh claiming regular appointment on the basis of the selection held in 1986 i.e. after about 27 years, therefore, for the reasons already mentioned in our judgment dated 19.01.2016 such a belated writ petition was clearly not maintainable and the learned Single Judge ought to have considered this aspect of the matter. 9. For the reasons already mentioned, hereinabove, and in the earlier judgment dated 10.01.2016, we are of the view that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. The same is hereby quashed. 10. The Special Appeal is allowed. The Writ Petition No. 333 (SS) of 2013 stands dismissed.