JUDGMENT Paritosh K.Mukherjee, J. 1. This writ petition is appearing for admission although it appears from the note given by the Registry that the writ petition is filed beyond 621 days. 2. Although as per directions off this Court the delay of filing the writ petition has been explained by means of filing a supplementary affidavit but having considered the facts stated in the supplementary affidavit I am not inclined to condone the delay. Further or merits of the rasa, the petitioner in the instant writ petition prays for implementation of the award dated 14-5-1984 passed by the Industrial Tribunal in his favour for granting monetary relief of the pay scale of Draftsman for the period from 9-3-77 to 30-7-82. 3. Short facts stated in the instant: writ petition is as follows :- 4. Petitioner was appointed as Tracer by the respondent nos., 2 and 3 and was promoted on the post of Draftsman w.e.f. January 1, 1974 by the U. P. State Electricity Board, the said promotion was later on challenged in the appropriate court at the instance of Mohammad Riyaz in adjudication case no. 63/75. The labour court passed an award on November 10, 1976 and observed that the appointment off the petitioner on the post of Draftsman should be cancelled and fresh steps should be taken for promotion taking into consideration the case of Mohammad Riyaz and other, such persons senior to the petitioner. It is further case of the petitioner that although the said award has been passed by the Labour Court, the respondent nos. 2 and 3 did not act upon the said direction passed by the Industrial Tribunal and the present petitioner by means of the instant writ petition has challenged the aforesaid award. 5. When no salary in the pay scale of the draftsman was paid to the petitioner by the respondents no. 2 sand 3 inspite of taking the services of the petitioner as draftsman, the petitioner raised dispute and altinately thereafter the matter was referred to another Labour Court, and, at this time the Labour Court passed an award in favour of the petitioner observing that since respondent authorities have utilised the services of the petitioner as Draftsman the petitioner is entitled to the pay of Draftsman for the aforesaid period. The subsequent award passed on May 14, 1984 which is impugned in the instant writ petition has been challenged in 1986 i.e. about 2 years after passing of the impugned order/award. 6. From time to time learned judges of this Court given relief to the petitioner to file supplementary affidavit, if any, to condone the delay in filing the writ petition. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and having considered the facts stated in the supplementary affidavit, explaining the delay and also the facts of the writ petition. I am of the view that although there is no hard and fast rule applying any law of limitation in the miscellaneous writ petition, but ordinarily as per the practice of this Court the limitation is of 90 days, and, although I am not inclined to condone the delay and also not want to dismiss the writ petition, I am of the view that since respondent no. 2 and 3 are not appearing inspite of the notices, and, it was incumbent upon the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to grant salary to the petitioner in the pay scale of Draftsman w.e.f. 9-3-1977 to 30-7-1982, i.e. for the period the respondent nos, 2 and 3 have utilised the services of the petitioner as Draftman. The respondents are duty bound to pay the petitioner his salary for the aforesaid period as the respondents had not acted upon the earlier award passed by the labour court referred to hereinabove, and, had not challenged the same at any forum, and, hence allowed the petitioner 10 discharge his duties as Draftsman. 7. It is expected that the respondents shall finalise the payment of the petitioner for the aforesaid period as quickly as possible, preferably within a period of 3 months from the data of production of a certified copy of this order. However, there shall bet no order as to costs. 8. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is disposed of finally. Let a certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel on payment of usual charges.