CWP No. 1760 of 2009 22.06 2009 Present: Mr. Bimal Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma and Mr. Anil Jaswal, Deputy Advocate Generals, for the respondents. The petitioner had approached the learned Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal by way of OA (M) No.644 of 1995 seeking a direction to the respondents to regularize him from 1986. The learned Tribunal decided the OA on 14.3.2007. The learned Tribunal directed the respondents to give appointment to the petitioner as work-charge status with effect from 1.1.1994. The petitioner has assailed this decision dated 14.3.2007. The case of the petitioner is that he was overlooked for regularization in the year 1986. He has assailed the action of the respondents in the year 1995. The limitation prescribed by the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is one year. However, the Tribunal despite the petition being barred by limitation has granted the necessary relief to the petitioner by ordering a direction to the respondents to give him appointment as work-charge status with effect from 1.1.1994. Mr. Gupta has also admitted that his client was also paid some compensation pursuant to the order dated 14.3.2007. However, the fact of the matter is that the petitioner has not explained the delay in filing OA(M) No.644 of 1995 when the cause of action has arisen to him in the year 1986. Consequently, the plea raised by Mr. Gupta to direct the respondents to regularize his client with effect from 1986 cannot be accepted. Accordingly, there is no merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. (Jagdish Bhalla), C.J. June 22, 2009. (Rajiv Sharma), J. (rc)