Judgment Radha Mohan Pd. , J. 1. In the present writ application the petitioner has prayad for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to pay the differences in pay scale and other allowances from 24-7-1974 to 1982 which has not been paid till today and further to pay the scale of her casual leave from 24-8-1983 to 22-51983 and June, 83 to November, 83 and the travelling allowances from the period 1981 to June, 83 and for a direction to redress other grievances of the petitioner raised by her in so-called representations riled by her from time to time. 2. In short, the case of the petitioner is that the petitioner was appointed as mukhya Sevika, a post in the Family and Child Welfare Advisory board, Project under Bihar State Social Welfare Board, a statutory body constituted under Social Welfare Act. From 1978 to 28th November, 1983 she was posted at Behra in Bhojpur district. Thereafter, she was posted at inchak, Hajaribagh and at present posted from 7th February, 1987 at Dban-arua and she is working at Dhanarua till date. It is stated that on acceptacce of the Third Pay Revision Committee Report the Secretary of the Bihar state Social Welfare Board, Patna issued order on 21-5-82 (Annexure 1) fixing the pay of the petitioner. 3. It is further stated that after the receipt of the said order of the secretary the petitioner has been paid the salary and other allowances as fixed by the Social Walfare Advisory Board, but arrear of salary from 24-7-74 has not been paid to the petitioner. It is vaguely alleged that other grievances of the petitioner has also not been fulfilled by the respondents and other authorities concerned, although she filed representf tion on 20th August, 1992, a true copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 2. 4. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the action of the respondents authorities in not paying the balance amount of the petitioner even after two years is a clear act of mala fide in law and also on facts, besides being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 (l),of the Constitution of India. 5. 4. Mr. Sharma, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has contended that the action of the respondents authorities in not paying the balance amount of the petitioner even after two years is a clear act of mala fide in law and also on facts, besides being arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 (l),of the Constitution of India. 5. On being confronted with that the petition suffers from gross delay and laches, the learned Counsel submitted that in fact, the cause of action in the present case arises month to month and thus, there is no delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in moving this Court. 6. In my opinion, the said submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is wholly misconceived and untenable. The cause of action if any, for grant of relief to the petitioner arose on 21-5-82 when the order is stated to have been passed by the Secretary of the Board. No explanation much less a satisfactory explanation has been given in the entire writ petition by the petitioner, except making a bald statement that the petitioner filed several representations, but annexing only a copy of one representation which, is stated to have been filed on 20th April, 1992. Even for a suit the cause of action, if any, arose on 21-5-82 and accordingly, it would have been also time barred in 1985. 7. In the case of M. K. Krishnaswamy V/s. The Union of India, AIR 1973 sc 1168 , the Supreme Court refused to believe that the High Court would have ever entertained such stale claim in service, where even the suit would, have been hopelessly time-barred and thus, declined to interfere. 8. It is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of the discretion does ntn ordinarily assist the tard and the indolent or the acquiescent the lethargic, and unless the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner filing writ petition is satisfactorily explained the petitioner will not be entitled for any relief aad the high Court may decline to interfere and grant relief in the exercise of its extra ordinary power to its writ juridiction. As the petitioner has not given any satisfactory explanation for approaching this Court after such a long delay, the writ petition is liable to be summarily dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. Accordingly, the writ application is summarily dismissed, but without costs. Writ Application dismissed.