JUDGMENT : Dr. B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner, who was working temporarily as Rent Collector under Cuttack Development Authority, has filed this writ petition seeking for direction to regularize his services and grant all consequential benefits in accordance with law. 2. The Cuttack Development Authority (CDA) is a statutory body regulated by the provisions of Orissa Development Authority Act, 1962 and the Rules framed thereunder. It created 6 posts of Rent Collector in General Category in its 50th Authority Meeting held on 28.06.1997, and two posts of Rent Collector along with other posts in its 51st Authority Meeting held on 24.12.1997. Against the said posts, the petitioner, along with three others, was engaged as Rent Collector on ad hoc basis for a period of 44 days by office order dated 31.10.1997. His engagement was extended from time to time on 44 days basis, pursuant to Annexure-2 series, till 18.02.1999. Thereafter, no engagement order was issued, as a consequence of which, the petitioner is no more in employment. On the whole, the petitioner has only worked for 1 year and 56 days. 3. The petitioner, while working under the CDA, represented for regularization of his service. As the opposite parties did not take any action, the petitioner, along with three other Rent Collectors, filed OJC No.19047 of 1999 seeking for regularization of their services. In the said case, the opposite parties were noticed and filed their counter affidavit. But then, the opposite parties, pursuant to a settlement, offered oral assurance for regularization subject to withdrawal of the said writ petition. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner, along with three others, filed a memo on 23.02.1999, as a consequence of which, by order dated 25.02.1999 OJC No.19047 of 1999 was disposed of as withdrawn. 4. As the matter stood thus, on 15.07.1999, 15 disengaged workers, including 8 Rent Collectors, submitted representation before the Vice-Chairman, CDA for their 44 days engagement. In 59th Authority Meeting held on 13.08.1999 at agenda item No.14/59, the Vice-Chairman, considering the work load, was authorized to take a decision as to whether the disengaged persons can be re-engaged. Accordingly, on the basis of work available, the Vice-Chairman decided to re-engage only 7 Rent Collectors, excluding the petitioner, which was approved by the Chairman, CDA on 30.11.1999. In 59th Authority Meeting held on 13.08.1999 at agenda item No.14/59, the Vice-Chairman, considering the work load, was authorized to take a decision as to whether the disengaged persons can be re-engaged. Accordingly, on the basis of work available, the Vice-Chairman decided to re-engage only 7 Rent Collectors, excluding the petitioner, which was approved by the Chairman, CDA on 30.11.1999. Thereafter, by office order dated 18.12.1999, seven Rent Collectors and one Junior Clerk-cum-Typist were re-engaged on 44 days basis in different branches/sections of CDA w.e.f. 20.12.1999. Subsequently, the services of those 7 Rent Collectors were regularized by office order dated 03.10.2000. But the petitioner, who is senior to those 7 Rent Collectors, having denied engagement, has been discriminated. Hence this writ petition. 5. Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the opposite parties, having re-engaged and subsequently regularized 7 Rent Collectors who are juniors to the petitioner, on the basis of work available, should not have denied such benefit to the petitioner, particularly when vacancies were available. Such action of the opposite parties is not only discriminatory but also arbitrary, unreasonable and contrary to the settled position of law. To substantiate his contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of the apex Court in Amarkant Rai v. State of Bihar, 2015 (3) SCALE 505 , Rajpal v. State of Haryana, 1996 SCC (L & S) 600 and of this Court dated 28.07.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 8350 of 2012 (Suvendu Mohanty v. State) and batch, 6. Mr. S. Swain, learned counsel for the CDA, referring to counter affidavit, states that 7 Rent Collectors were engaged pursuant to decision of 59th Authority Meeting of CDA held on 13.08.1999. Since there was no vacancy, the case of the petitioner was not taken into consideration. In any case, the petitioner, from the date of his disengagement, i.e., 18.02.1999 remained silent till 2005, when the present writ petition was filed. As such, delay in approaching the Court has not been explained in proper perspective, as a consequence of which, the writ petition suffers from delay and laches. It is further contended that, at the relevant point of time, because of ban imposed by the State Government with regard to engagement of DLR and NMR, the case of the petitioner could not be taken into consideration for engagement even on daily wage basis. It is further contended that, at the relevant point of time, because of ban imposed by the State Government with regard to engagement of DLR and NMR, the case of the petitioner could not be taken into consideration for engagement even on daily wage basis. More so, by the time the petitioner approached this Court in 2005, he was 38 years of age and, in the meantime, he must have attained more than 50 years of age. Thereby, in the event, at this belated stage, any engagement order is issued, it will be detrimental to the interest of the opposite parties. 7. Heard Mr. P.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Swain, learned counsel for opposite parties no.2 and 3. Since pleadings have been exchanged between the parties, with their consent the matter is being disposed of at the stage of admission. 8. The claim of the petitioner revolves around the fact that although the persons disengaged along with him had been re-engaged by the authority on 18.12.1999 on 44 days basis, taking into consideration the work load available under the CDA, and subsequently they had already been regularized, the petitioner should not have been discriminated, particularly when he, along with others, had approached this Court in OJC No.1904 of 1999, which was withdrawn by the petitioner on 25.02.1999 stating to be pursuant to an oral settlement in which the opposite parties had offered for regularization of their services. 9. The claim of the petitioner that he should be absorbed and regularized in his service is absolutely misconceived one, inasmuch as by the time O.J.C. No.1904 of 1999 was filed the petitioner was no more in employment and, as such, he was disengaged from service with effect from 18.02.1999. A person, who is not in employment, cannot claim for regularization and absorption in service unless and until he is duly re-engaged or re-employed by the employer concerned. Admittedly, the petitioner was not re-engaged or re-employed after 18.02.1999. 10. In Meera Massey v. S.R. Mehrotra, AIR 1998 SC 1153 , the apex Court held that regularization means, one which is already working, doing or has done something which law did not permit but the same is being regularized, treated to be done in accordance with law, treat one as such. 11. 10. In Meera Massey v. S.R. Mehrotra, AIR 1998 SC 1153 , the apex Court held that regularization means, one which is already working, doing or has done something which law did not permit but the same is being regularized, treated to be done in accordance with law, treat one as such. 11. In Ramchander v. Additional District Magistrate, (1998) 1 SCC 183 , the apex Court held that a retrenched employee cannot claim the relief of regularization unless his termination from service is found to be illegal. Thus, only an employee who is continuing in service for a long time is eligible for seeking such a relief. 12. In H.P. Housing Board v. Om Pal, (1997) 1 SCC 269 , the apex Court categorically held that the services of a temporary employee who stood removed cannot be regularized unless the order of termination itself is quashed by the Court. 13. Applying the aforementioned provisions of law, as laid down by the apex Court, to the present context, it appears from the pleadings available on records that the petitioner sought for the following reliefs: “It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be graciously pleased to issue notice on the opp. parties asking them to show cause as to why the petitioner shall not be absorbed in his post as rent Collector and his service shall not be regularized like other juniors have given absorption and regularized their services, if the opp. Parties fail to show cause or shows insufficient cause, then on hearing from both the parties, issue a writ of appropriate nature, directing to the opp. Parties to give absorption the petitioner as Rent Collector and regularize the service of the petitioner within a stipulated period/time”. On the face of the above relief sought, it is evident that the petitioner has never claimed for quashing of his disengagement order dated 18.02.1999. As such, the petitioner, by the time approached this Court in 2005, was no more in employment by virtue of termination order. Consequentially, he cannot claim for regularization of services and adjustment thereof in view of the law discussed above. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner to regularize his service cannot sustain in the eye of law. 14. As such, the petitioner had approached this Court claiming for re-engagement in 2005 without explaining the delay in approaching this Court. Consequentially, he cannot claim for regularization of services and adjustment thereof in view of the law discussed above. Accordingly, the claim of the petitioner to regularize his service cannot sustain in the eye of law. 14. As such, the petitioner had approached this Court claiming for re-engagement in 2005 without explaining the delay in approaching this Court. In course of hearing, although learned counsel for the petitioner tried to explain that due to pendency of his representations filed before the authorities the petitioner approached this Court in 2005, yet that by itself cannot be a ground to approach this Court at a belated stage. The law is fairly settled that for approaching the Court without explaining delay in proper perspective, the writ petition suffers from delay and laches and, therefore, cannot be entertained. 15. Mr. S. Swain, learned counsel appearing for the CDA stated that at this moment there is no adequate work to give engagement, even if one Rent Collector post is lying vacant due to premature death of one Babu Bichitra Mohanty after his re-engagement by the authority. In such view of the matter, re-engagement of the petitioner, as claimed in this writ petition, is not practicable. In absence of work, question of issuance of any re-engagement order does not arise at all. 16. Coming to the decisions relied upon by learned counsel for the petitioner, in Amarkant Rai (supra) the apex Court held that the petitioner therein had rendered service for more than 29 years in the post of Night Guard and had served the College on daily wages. Therefore, taking into consideration the fact that the employee was continuing in service for a long time the apex Court held that he was eligible for relief and accordingly directed for regularization of his services. The ratio decided in the said case will have no application to the present case where the petitioner has rendered only one year and 56 days. So far as the judgment in Rajpal (supra) is concerned, the apex Court in that case held that since the persons similarly situated were admittedly taken into service and their services had been regularized by the orders of the apex Court, the appellant therein being the only person left out in the field also stood in the same position and was entitled to the same relief. The ratio decided in the said case is distinguishable from the present context in view of the fact that at that point of time, i.e. 18.02.1999 basing upon the availability of work re-engagement was given by the authorities (not by virtue of Court’s order) to seven persons. Even if the petitioner was not re-engaged, that itself cannot create any right in his favour because he was no more in employment after 18.02.1999. The ratio decided in the said judgment cannot be of any application to the present case. The case of Suvendu Mohanty (supra) is completely different from the case in hand, and as such, has no application at all. 17. For the discussions made above, this Court is of the considered view that the claim of the petitioner for absorption in his post as Rent Collector and regularization of his service, without having any employment with effect from 18.02.1999, is misconceived one. As such, the petitioner has approached this Court at a belated stage and, in absence of any work under the opposite parties, the relief sought for cannot be granted. 18. In the result therefore, the writ petition merits no consideration and is thus dismissed.