JUDGMENT : The writ petitioner’s claim for being reverted back as regularised employee of the Housing Board under the State of Jharkhand has been rejected by the learned First Court on the ground of such claim being legally untenable as well as belated. The writ petitioner was engaged as a work charge staff on temporary basis in the Housing Department of State of Bihar in the year 1969 in the capacity of “Bijali Mistry” i.e. electrical mechanic. Subsequently, Bihar State Housing Board was formed in the year 1972 and an option was given to such temporary work charge staff to join the Board. The writ petitioner had joined the Board on 13th June, 1975 and his service was regularised with effect from the same date by a memorandum dated 29th April, 1989, which is annexure-5 to the memorandum of appeal. 2. Thereafter certain employees, who were working in the Board itself, were regularised in the Housing Department with effect from 22nd October, 1984 as it appears from Annexure-4 to the memorandum of appeal. At the time of switching over from Housing Department to Housing Board, the writ petitioner was given an option, and on the basis of such option the writ petitioner was engaged in the Housing Board. The writ petitioner was subsequently promoted to the post of Junior Engineer and it has been submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent no.1, in course of hearing before us that further promotion was granted to the writ petitioner in the Board itself. The writ petitioner on attaining the age of superannuation retired from service on 31st July, 2002. He had obtained all the retiral benefits. On 19th August, 2005, he, however, made a representation, a copy of which has been made annexure –11 to the memorandum of appeal. In the representation, he sought release of his retiral dues, which admittedly has been cleared but at a later date. His further prayer is for his regularisation in the Department itself with effect from 22nd October, 1984 with the other work charge employees of whom we have referred to earlier in this judgment. 3. The writ petitioner, finding no response in respect of his grievances, had approached this Court earlier with W.P.(S) No. 5657 of 2005. Main plea of the writ petitioner in that proceeding was for regularisation of his service in the housing department itself. 3. The writ petitioner, finding no response in respect of his grievances, had approached this Court earlier with W.P.(S) No. 5657 of 2005. Main plea of the writ petitioner in that proceeding was for regularisation of his service in the housing department itself. That writ petition was disposed of by a learned Single Judge on 20th August, 2009 with a direction for decision on regularisation of service of the writ petitioner. Further direction was issued for clearing all the benefits to which the writ petitioner was entitled from the date it was made effective to the other twenty one employees. So far as clearing the retiral benefits is concerned, not much grievance has been made out before us at the time of hearing of this appeal and hence, we do not need to consider that part of grievance of the writ petitioner. 4. Rejection order was, however, issued on 10th December,2010 in respect of the writ petitioner’s claim for regularisation primarily on the ground that the writ petitioner had joined the Housing Board on his own volition upon being given choice and there was substantial delay in making the representation. The learned First Court in the judgment under appeal had sustained this stand of the respondent authorities. The learned First Court dismissed the writ petition, inter-alia, holding: “12. Keeping into regard five years of satisfactory service as required under departmental circular framed for the purposes of regularization of work charge employees, the government of Bihar had taken a decision through government order no. 592 dated 20th March, 1988 to regularize the services of those work charge employees under the department and at the same time allowed them to continue in the Bihar State Housing Board. This subtle distinction in the legal status of the petitioner vis-à-vis the 21 other persons is enough to demolish the case of the petitioner for regularization under the respondent department of Building Construction and Housing Department, Government of Bihar. Petitioner being conscious of such a legal position also appears to have not raised such a grievance any time before any court of law till he approached this Court after his retirement on 31st July, 2002 in 2005 in the previous round of litigation. Petitioner being conscious of such a legal position also appears to have not raised such a grievance any time before any court of law till he approached this Court after his retirement on 31st July, 2002 in 2005 in the previous round of litigation. The case of Niranjan Kumar Sinha (Supra) relied upon by the petitioner at Annexure-13 also indicates that till the issuance of office order dated 22nd July, 2009, the said employee continued to work as work charge employee on the post of Work Sarkar in Housing Board and was not regularized under Housing Board despite being on deputation from the department for so long. Therefore, the case of said Niranjan Kumar Sinha is distinguishable from the case of the present petitioner. The judgment rendered in the case of Surendra Dwivedi (Supra) on perusal, does not clarify as to whether the service of said petitioner was earlier regularized in the Housing Board and thereafter again he staked a claim for regularisation under Bihar State Housing Board. However, these subtle distinctions in the case of the petitioner as have been noticed hereinabove persuade this Court to come to the conclusion that once having been absorbed in the service of Housing Board in 1975 itself and having remained as such till his retirement on 31st July, 2002, his claim for regularization is not only legal untenable but otherwise also raised much after his regularization in Housing Board in 1975. The petitioner was also a member of EPF scheme of the Housing Board and has drawn the benefits thereof after his retirement. 13. Considering all aspects of the matter, I do not find that at this length of time such a claim for regularization under Government of Bihar should be allowed. The impugned order therefore does not appear to suffer from any infirmity or factual errors.” 5. We do not find any reason to take a contrary view. The writ petitioner has not been able to explain before us the reason as to why he raised demand for regularisation in the department after such a long time. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner also could not explain to us what advantage would be derived by him in the event he was to go back to the original department where he was engaged as a work charge temporary employee. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner also could not explain to us what advantage would be derived by him in the event he was to go back to the original department where he was engaged as a work charge temporary employee. Even without considering the advantage or disadvantage which might have had accrued to him if his plea was sustained, we do not find any reason to interfere with the judgment of the learned First Court as the writ petitioner had exercised option to be in the Housing Board and he also obtained career promotion benefits in the Board itself without raising any protest. He has also taken all retiral benefits. Now, we do not find any basis in his claim for being reverted back to the Housing Department after retirement. We accordingly dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal. 6. As we have addressed the question raised in this appeal on merit, the connected application, being I.A. No. 5847 of 2016, shall also stand dismissed.