ORDER 1. Assailing the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in dismissing Writ Petition No.946 of 2019, the writ petitioner is in appeal. 2. The case of the writ petitioner is that he was an employee of the respondents/department appointed on the post of Assistant Grade-III on 1.1.1979. He was continuously rendering his services in the respondents/department. He suffered from a chronic disease. During the period from 5.7.1985 to 23.1.1989 he was under continuous treatment. After he recovered from his illness and on issuance of a fitness certificate by the Chief Medical Officer, Balaghat he submitted his joining in the department, but he was not allowed to join. He approached the learned Labour Court in terms of section 31(3) of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960. The learned Labour Court allowed the application vide order dated 6.2.1996 and directed for his reinstatement with all consequential benefits. In pursuance to same, he was reinstated. After reinstatement, the writ petitioner continued in service on the post of Assistant Grade-III. He submitted an application on 10.7.2003 claiming regularization in service. The same was recommended and forwarded by the Executive Engineer, but despite of the same his services were not regularized. The Department of General Administration issued a circular dated 16.5.2007 with regard to regularization of services of employees in the light of the judgment passed by the Constitutional Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka v. Umadevi (3), reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1 . The claim of the writ petitioner should have been considered for regularization in the light of Umadevi’s case. But despite of the same, the services of the writ petitioner’s were not regularized and his application was rejected. It is submitted that the writ petitioner was working against the vacant and sanctioned post, therefore, his appointment cannot be termed as an illegal appointment. It was a regular appointment and same can always be regularized after passing of the order of the Labour Court. The service of the writ petitioner was granted stamp of approval after the order passed by the learned Labour Court. The order of rejection is per se illegal as the same was not communicated to the writ petitioner and, therefore, he could not challenge the same at an appropriate time. The service of the writ petitioner was granted stamp of approval after the order passed by the learned Labour Court. The order of rejection is per se illegal as the same was not communicated to the writ petitioner and, therefore, he could not challenge the same at an appropriate time. For the first time the same was brought to the knowledge of the writ petitioner when the respondents have filed the return in the writ petition. Therefore, there is some delay in filing the writ petition which was explained by the writ petitioner. Despite of the same, the learned writ Court has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petition is filed with a substantial delay of nine years and the writ petitioner has never challenged the order dated 24.11.2009 by which his representation was rejected. It is his claim that in identical circumstances the benefit has already been extended to other employees. Therefore, he has prayed for setting aside of the impugned order and consideration of his case for regularization. 3. Per contra, counsel appearing of the respondents has vehemently opposed the contentions and stated therein that the writ Court has rightly considered the case of the writ petitioner. The representation submitted by the writ petitioner was rejected on 24.11.2009 and was communicated to the writ petitioner on 27.6.2011, but the same has not been put to challenge by the writ petitioner at any point of time. The writ petitioner stood retired on attaining the age of superannuation in the year 2017 and has filed the petition in the year 2019 i.e. after two years from the date of retirement. The order dated 24.11.2009 was challenged by the writ petitioner in the year 2019 after a delay of 10 years. After retirement of an employee, no regularization can be claimed. Therefore, the writ Court has rightly rejected the claim of the writ petitioner. No interference is called for in the impugned order. In view of the aforesaid, he has prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal. 4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 5. Apart from the undisputed facts that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was on muster roll and his services were initially dispensed with. After the order passed by the learned Labour Court, he was reinstated in service. It goes to show that his services were never continuous. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record. 5. Apart from the undisputed facts that the initial appointment of the writ petitioner was on muster roll and his services were initially dispensed with. After the order passed by the learned Labour Court, he was reinstated in service. It goes to show that his services were never continuous. He was absent for a considerable period, therefore, it cannot be disputed that his services were not continuous. As far as claim with respect to regularization is concerned, the application was submitted in the year 2003, which was rejected in the year 2009. Merely, forwarding a letter by the Executive Engineer does not give any right to the writ petitioner to claim his regularization in service. The order passed by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Umadevi (3) (supra), was a one time arrangement which was given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The writ petitioner ought to have claimed the benefits at the relevant time. Having waited for a considerable period of more than 10 years even after his rejection of the representation, no benefit can be claimed by the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner continued to be in service on muster roll till 2017 i.e. his date of superannuation and till he attained the age of superannuation, no steps have been taken by the writ petitioner to either enquire about the decision on the representation or claimed the benefit of regularization in service. Mere filing a representation in 2003 which was rejected in 2009 no further claim can be made by the writ petitioner once he has already retired in the year 2017. There is an inordinate delay of 10 years in challenging the order dated 24.11.2009, after his retirement in the year 2017. The writ Court has rightly appreciated all the aspects of the case and has dismissed the writ petition. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner could not explain the inordinate delay except the fact that the same was never communicated to him. The fact remains that the writ petitioner continued to be in service as a muster employee till 2017 and there are no documents filed along with the writ petition or with this appeal to show the efforts being made by the writ petitioner to know the outcome of the representation. The fact remains that the writ petitioner continued to be in service as a muster employee till 2017 and there are no documents filed along with the writ petition or with this appeal to show the efforts being made by the writ petitioner to know the outcome of the representation. Under these circumstances, after retirement of the writ petitioner in 2017, no benefit regarding regularization can be extended to the writ petitioner. The learned writ Court has rightly appreciated all the aspects of the case and dismissed the writ petition. No error could be pointed out in the order passed by the writ Court. 6. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.