ORDER : ASHOK KUMAR GAUR, J. The present writ petition has been filed by the four petitioners seeking a direction against the respondents for regularization of their services with effect from :— Petitioner No.1 Gajraj Singh-15.7.1993, petitioner No.2 Rajendra Prasad Yadav-18.6.1993, petitioner No. 3 Baldev Yadav 25.9.1994 & petitioner No. 4 Hanuman Sahai Jat-1.6.1994. Petitioners have further prayed for a direction to pay all the arrears, all difference of salary and other allowances from the date of their initial appointment. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that there is already a judgment passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ (Petition) No.5720/1994, Satveer Singh v. Chairman of R.S.R.T.C. decided on 2.7.1996 (filed their Annexure-4 in the writ petition). The said judgment had given direction to the corporation to regularize the services of the employees in accordance with the guidelines/Administrative directions issued by the Corporation. The Court had also directed to gave similar treatment to all other employees to avoid the flow of writ petitions in the High Court. The Court in the said writ petition also gave direction in respect of that petitioner to get the regularization from the date of his entitlement or from the date when his junior was so regularized. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Sanchit Tamra submits that petitioners were initially appointed on daily wages basis on 15.7.1993, 8.6.1993, 28.5.1994 and 1.6.1994 respectively on the post of Driver. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that the date of regularization of services of the petitioners is 11.10.1996, 26.12.1996, 30.5.1997 and 30.6.1997 respectively. 5. Learned counsel submits that though petitioners have been regularized after completion of three years as per the guidelines of the policy of the corporation Court but they are not given any benefits or pay scale from initial appointment and counsel submits the judgment of this Court squarely applies to their case and as such, petitioners are entitled for the relief of regularization from the back date and the pay scale and other allowance are required to be given to them. 6. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners were continuously making representation for claiming the relief, the respondents did not pass any order and as such the writ petition has been filed before this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel and perused the material on record. 8. In the opinion of the Court, this petition is wholly misconceived. 6. Learned counsel submits that the petitioners were continuously making representation for claiming the relief, the respondents did not pass any order and as such the writ petition has been filed before this Court. 7. Heard learned counsel and perused the material on record. 8. In the opinion of the Court, this petition is wholly misconceived. The writ petition has been filed seeking a prayer to confer benefit of regularization from initial date of service. The petitioners who were regularized in the year 1996-1997 and they accepted the terms and conditions of the regularization. The petitioners cannot be permitted to rake up the issue of regularization almost after twenty years from their initial date of regularization. 9. This Court finds that the reliance on the judgment passed by the learned counsel for the petitioners, is also wholly misplaced. The judgment which has been passed by this Court had already given direction by passing the judgment in rem. The employer-corporation has carried out its obligation by regularizing the persons as per their guidelines and also in compliance of the judgment. The claim of pay scale of salary from initial date of appointment, is wholly misconceived. The petitioners having got the benefit of regularization and drawing the salary in regular pay scale since 1996-1997, cannot be permitted to approach the Court in writ jurisdiction after a lapse of twenty years. It is triate law that representation filed by an employee, do not extend the time for invoking the writ jurisdiction. 10. Petitioners have only false hope that the initial period of appointment as daily wages now should also give them benefit of regular pay scale. In the opinion of the Court, when the initial appointment order on daily wages was accepted and continued for almost three years period before regular appointment, no grievance can be raised before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 11. Consequently, the writ petition being devoid of merit, is accordingly dismissed.