JUDGMENT : SATYEN VAIDYA, J. 1. By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following substantive relief: “It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the present petition may kindly be allowed and the impugned Annexure P-10, order dated 19.08.2019, may please be quashed and set-aside by issuing the writ of certiorari with the further directions to the respondent to treat the petitioner as binder since 31.03.1999, with all consequential benefits till date alongwith difference in his wages with interest @ 12% per annum till the actual date of payment, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice. The respondents may also be directed to produce the entire and complete record unto this Hon’ble Court for satisfying its judicial conscience.” 2. The petitioner has sought above noted relief on the ground that he was engaged by the respondent-University in February, 1991, as a daily wage Beldar, but the petitioner from the very first day of his engagement, was assigned the work as a Binder in the Printing Press of respondent-University. The Director of Extension Education of the respondent-University in 1996, had recommended to pay the petitioner as skilled Binder keeping in view the fact that his work was found excellent. The petitioner was designated as skilled Binder in the year 1996. The services of petitioner were regularized in July, 2000 w.e.f. 31.03.1999 as daily waged labourer. He requested the authorities to consider his case for regularization as Binder, but his representation was turned down in the year 2008 on the ground that the petitioner was engaged as daily paid Binder w.e.f. 21.09.1996 only and as such, his services could not be regularized as Binder. As per petitioner, he came to know in 2019 that a similarly situated person named Sh. Rakesh Kumar had been granted same relief, as sought by the petitioner, by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal while deciding T.A. No. 5176 of 2015. The petitioner again represented to the respondent- University to give him the same treatment as given to Sh. Rakesh Kumar, but his representation was again rejected on 19.08.2019 on the grounds firstly, that the order passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in the case of Sh. Rakesh Kumar was under challenge in CWP No. 1938 of 2018 and secondly, the facts in the case of Sh. Rakesh Kumar, but his representation was again rejected on 19.08.2019 on the grounds firstly, that the order passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in the case of Sh. Rakesh Kumar was under challenge in CWP No. 1938 of 2018 and secondly, the facts in the case of Sh. Rakesh Kumar were different than the facts in the case of petitioner. 3. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the respondent on the ground that the initial engagement of petitioner in the year 1991 was as daily paid labourer. The factum of engagement of petitioner as Binder from 1991 is specifically denied. As per the respondent, the petitioner had worked in the Printing Press on daily paid basis to assist the binding work. He was engaged as daily paid Binder only w.e.f. 21.09.1996. Since, the petitioner had not completed eight years of continuous service as daily paid Binder, his services were regularized as Beldar w.e.f. 31.03.1999. The petitioner had accepted his regularization as a Beldar and had represented to the respondent for the first time in the year 2008 to consider his regularization as Binder w.e.f. 31.03.1999. His representation was rejected vide communication dated 25.11.2008. It is further submitted that the facts in the case of Sh. Rakesh Kumar were different than the facts involved in the case of petitioner. Sh. Rakesh Kumar, admittedly had worked as a Binder from the very first day of his engagement, whereas, the petitioner started working as Binder in the year 1996 i.e. after about five years of his initial engagement. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 5. It is not in dispute that the services of petitioner were regularized vide office order dated 01.07.2000 as Beldar w.e.f. 31.03.1999. Petitioner himself has placed reliance upon his regularization order Annexure P-2. There is nothing on record that petitioner had raised any objection immediately on his regularization as a Beldar in the year 2000. As per the admission made by the respondent in its reply, petitioner for the first time represented in the year 2008 and his representation was turned down on 25.11.2008. The communication dated 25.11.2008 from the Registrar of respondent-University to its Director Extension Education is on record as Annexure P-5, which reads as under: “I am directed to refer to the request of Sh. The communication dated 25.11.2008 from the Registrar of respondent-University to its Director Extension Education is on record as Annexure P-5, which reads as under: “I am directed to refer to the request of Sh. Santosh Kumar, Beldar of Directorate of Extension Education, CSKHPKV, Palampur addressed to the Hon’ble Minister, I&PH. Govt. of H.P. received in this office from the Hon’ble Minister, I&PH, Govt. of H.P. dated 6.11.2008 on the above subject and to intimate you that Sh. Santosh Kumar S/o Sh. Amar Singh was regularisd to the post of Beldar as per H.P. Govt. Policy for those daily paid workers, who have completed 8 years of continues service with 240 days in a calendar year as on 31.3.1999. He was engaged as daily paid Binder w.e.f. 21.9.1996 and as such he was not completing 8 years of continuous service and daily paid Binder as on 31.3.1999. Therefore, his services could not be regularized as Binder.” 6. Thus, the claim of petitioner is inordinately belated and suffers from vices of delay and laches. In the first instance, petitioner accepted his regularization as Beldar in the year 2000 and did not raise any voice till 2008. Even after the respondent-University turned down his request for regularization as Binder on 25.11.2008, he remained silent and did not choose to have the legal recourse, if any. 7. The petitioner has claimed the cause of action for filing the petition from the alleged date of knowledge about the order passed by the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal in T.A. No. 5176 of 2015 in case of Sh. Rakesh Kumar. As per petitioner, the cause of action further arose in his favour when his request was again turned down by the respondent vide communication dated 19.08.2019 (Annexure P-10). 8. In our considered view, the cause of action, if any, had arisen in favour of the petitioner for the first time in the year 2000 when his services were regularized as a Beldar. By affording all the premium to the petitioner, his cause of action cannot extend beyond 25.11.2008, when his request was turned down by the respondent-University vide Annexure P-5. The order passed by an adjudicatory forum in the case of some other incumbent, cannot be said to have afforded petitioner a fresh cause of action. By affording all the premium to the petitioner, his cause of action cannot extend beyond 25.11.2008, when his request was turned down by the respondent-University vide Annexure P-5. The order passed by an adjudicatory forum in the case of some other incumbent, cannot be said to have afforded petitioner a fresh cause of action. Even otherwise, we have found substance in the defence raised on behalf of the respondent that the facts in the case of petitioner are not exactly identical to the facts in the case of Sh. Rakesh Kumar. The respondent-University had clearly admitted that Sh. Rakesh Kumar had been assigned the work of Binder from the very first day and it was on the basis of such admission that Sh. Rakesh Kumar had been able to get the relief of regularization as Binder on completion of requisite period. In contrast, there is no such admission of the respondent-University in the case of petitioner. Rather, it has specifically been denied that the petitioner was assigned the job of Binder from very inception of his engagement. The respondent has come up with a specific plea that the petitioner was assigned the duties of Binder w.e.f. 1996. 9. The petitioner has not been able to place on record any document contradicting the stand taken by the respondent-University. The petitioner has placed reliance on document, Annexure P-1, certificate dated 11.12.1995 issued by the Assistant Director, Information and Publication of respondent-University, in which also the petitioner has been mentioned to have been engaged to assist in the printing work. This also does not prove that the petitioner was working as a Binder himself. 10. Keeping in view the above discussion, petition fails on both counts. Firstly, the petitioner failed to seek legal remedy, if any available to him, with sufficient promptitude, and secondly, he has failed to claim parity with the case of Sh. Rakesh Kumar (supra) 11. The petitioner has, thus failed to substantiate his claim regarding his engagement as a Binder by the respondent-University in the year 1991. Accordingly, the instant petition is dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any.