Short Note : By this petition ten petitioners have jointly prayed that Memo No. 382/III-BA-Ind. dated 29-7-1954, issued by the Government of Madhya Pradesh and marked annexure 11 at page No. 33 of the Paper-Book, be held to be illegal in certain respects and the word 're-fixation' therein be removed and the petitioners be given benefit of new fixation from 1-1-1949 in terms of the said order of the Government. Held : In the first place, we may observe that this was not a fit case in which ten persons should have joined as petitioners. In our opinion, joining of 10 persons as petitioners in the case has resulted in misjoinder of parties as well as causes of action. It may be pointed out that according to the petition itself, the petitioners No.1, 3,7,9 and 10 had entered into service as teachers of Sangeet Mahavidyalaya, Lashkar after the formation of the erstwhile State of Madhya Bharat, whereas petitioners No.2, 4, 5,6 and 8 entered into service in the former Gwalior State. The dates of their appointments have not been mentioned. Be that as it may, a preliminary objection has been raised by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the petition is inordinately delayed and, therefore, this Court Should decline to go into its merits. It has been contended in para 4(a) of the return at page No. 67 of the Paper-Book that the petition has been filed after twenty years of the date of the impugned notification. 2. The petitioners did not care to amend the petition during the four years since the petition was filed and has made this belated application. This application (I.A. No. 1074/78) for amendment is, therefore, liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay. 3. In our opinion, even this ground does not explain the delay. The impugned notification was issued in July 1954. The petitioners' case is that another employee Gopal Lal Pujari filed a civil suit which was decreed and the Government made payment to him according to the decree by order dated 5-11-1973 and thereafter wanted to correct the mistake by fixing the scales of pay mentioned in annexure-11 in respect of the petitioners also. 4. We are, therefore satisfied that the petition is the first instance, suffers from misjoinder of parties. 4. We are, therefore satisfied that the petition is the first instance, suffers from misjoinder of parties. But that is not so material as compared to the inordinate delay of twenty years after which the petition has been filed. It is clear that the petitioners have been guilty of gross laches and are not entitled to seek any relief in exercise of our extra-ordinary jurisdiction. Petition dismissed.