A belated challenge to the date of regularisation is barred by laches.

The petitioner was appointed as an NMR/Helper in the Public Works Department on 26 December 1977 through the Employment Exchange.

His service was regularised as Wireman Grade II with effect from 1 January 1988 under G.O.(Ms.) No.680 dated 16 August 1995.

He accepted the regularisation, continued in service, and retired on 31 July 2010.

In 2017, he sought regularisation from his initial date of entry to obtain full pension.

The Department rejected the request by communication dated 16 May 2017, observing that the claim was not legally acceptable and had been made seven years after retirement.

He then filed this writ petition seeking to quash that communication and obtain regularisation from 26 December 1977.

Whether the Department’s communication dated 16 May 2017 was an order amenable to challenge in the writ petition.

Whether the petitioner could obtain regularisation from his initial date of entry when he had accepted the 1995 Government Order fixing regularisation from 1 January 1988 and challenged it only after retirement.

The Court applied the principles that a communication merely informing a person of the legal position is not, by itself, an order warranting judicial challenge, and that a party aggrieved by the date fixed for regularisation must challenge the Government Order that established that date.

It also applied the doctrine of laches, under which a highly belated claim may be dismissed.

The judgment cited no statute or precedent.

The Court found that the petitioner’s regularisation date was fixed by G.O.(Ms.) No.680, which he had accepted without challenge, joined duty under, and remained in service until retirement.

The 2017 communication merely conveyed the Department’s position and was not itself an order determining his service status.

Because the petitioner had not challenged the Government Order fixing his regularisation date and had approached the Court only after a substantial delay—including seven years after retirement—the Court held that the petition was barred by laches.

It made no order as to costs.