JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral): By way of this petition, the petitioner has, inter alia, prayed for the following reliefs: ?(a) That the respondents may be directed to treat the applicant at par with the other similarly situated persons mentioned in the representations made by the applicant to the respondent No. 2. (b) That the respondents may kindly be directed to regularize the applicant as Supervisor Class-III from the due date.? 2. Primarily, the petitioner is aggrieved by his regularization as Beldar, which took place on 01.01.2001, purportedly on the ground that persons who were engaged on daily wages after him, were designated and regularized as Store-keepers/Class-III employees. It is further the case of the petitioner that earlier also, he approached this Court by way of a writ petition in the year 2011, which was ordered to be treated as representation and vide office order dated 06.04.2012, the same stood dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended therewith. 4. The relevant portion of order dated 06.04.2012 (Annexure A-4), which has been passed by the competent authority on the representation of the petitioner, pursuant to the earlier order passed by this Court in the petition so filed by the petitioner, i.e., CWP No. 3177 of 2011, reads as under: ?….And whereas the Hon'ble High Court in CMP No. 11270 of 2011 clarified that the representation referred to in the judgment shall be decided by the second respondent. Therefore, as per direction of Hon'ble High Court, the representation of the petitioner Shri Rameshwar Prasad (Annexure P-1), the record furnished by Superintending Engineer, 4th Circle Shimla as well as by Executive Engineer, HPPWD Shimla Division II has also been considered. Perusal of said record reveals that petitioner Sh. Rameshwar Prashad was initially engaged in the Public Works Department during August, 1990 as Beldar and worked as such till 31.07.1996. Thereafter he worked as Work Inspector w.e.f. 1.8.1996 to 27.2.2003. Since he has not completed 8 years daily wage service in the higher post of Work Inspector, he was offered appointment in the lower post of Beldar by taking into account service rendered in both the categories vide Executive Engineer, Medical College Division Shimla office order No. PW- MCD-EA-II-DW/2002/6316-22 dated 28.2.2003 to which he also joined on 28.02.2003 without any protest. After scrutiny of record, I have found that the present petitioner has been regularized strictly in accordance with the regularization policy as well as ratio laid down by the Hon'ble High Court in Gauri Dutt case. In so far as the cases quoted by the petitioner in his representation Annexure P-1 is concerned, it has already been admitted by the department that regularization in these cases have not been done according to the rule/regularization policy and the Superintending Engineer, 4th Circle Shimla has already been directed to look into the matter. The petitioner has no right to force the department to extent the same benefit to him as given inadvertently to other candidates in contravention to the rules/policy. Hence the representation of Shri Rameshwar Prashad is considered and rejected being devoid of any merit.? 5. A perusal of order dated 06.04.2012 demonstrates that upon completion of requisite years of service, the services of the petitioner were regularized on the post of Beldar and he accepted the same by joining as regular employee on 28.02.2003 without any protest. It is further borne out from this order that the orders of regularization of other employees, which were so pointed out by the petitioner, as per the Department, were not found to be inconsonance with the Regularization Policy and accordingly, Superintending Engineer, 4th Circle, Shimla was directed to look into the matter. 6. Be that as it may, in my considered view, if the petitioner was really aggrieved by his regularization against the post of Beldar in the year 2003, then he ought to have had approached the Court within some reasonable time. However, the first petition raising his grievance in this regard was filed by the petitioner in the year 2011. This Court in its wisdom directed the same to be treated as representation. The appropriate authority passed orders upon the said representation of the petitioner in obedience of the order so passed in the earlier writ petition on 06.04.2012, meaning thereby that cause of action after adjudication of said representation accrued in favour of the petitioner to assail the order so passed by the competent authority on 06.04.2012. Yet, the petitioner slept over the matter for four years and filed this petition in the year 2016. Yet, the petitioner slept over the matter for four years and filed this petition in the year 2016. There is no cogent reason mentioned in the petition as to why the petitioner could not assail the order passed by the competent authority within some reasonable time as from the date of passing of order dated 06.04.2012. The explanation given at the Bar by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was repeatedly representing the authority, in my considered view, does not comes to the rescue of the petitioner, because it is settled law that representations can not cure the defect of delay and latches. This petition, undoubtedly, is badly hit by delay and latches, as there is no explanation given in the petition as to why the petitioner did not assail the order passed by the competent authority on 06.04.2012 within some reasonable period. Further, on merits also, this Court finds no infirmity with the order so passed by the authority concerned of regularization of the petitioner against the post of Beldar, as it is not in dispute that upon his being regularized as such, no objection was raised by the petitioner that he should not have been regularized against the post of Beldar. In this view of the matter, as there is no merit in the petition, the same is dismissed, so also pending miscellaneous applications, if any.