Judgment Radha Moban Prasad, J. 1. The present writ application has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents 1 to 4 to consider the case of the petitioner for promotion to the regular post of Assistant Director, Agriculture (Chemistry and Compost developments) in the pay scale of Rs.1350-2000, revised from time to time and now in the revised pay scale of Rs.3000-4500 with efiect from 10-7-1982. In short, the case of the petitioner is that while he was working as Instructor, chemistry at Bhagalpur with effect from 10-7-1982 the said post was converted into the post of Assistant Director Agriculture (Chemietry and Compost)in the Junior selection grade in the pay scale of Rs- 1350-2000 by government order dated 31-12-1983. Accordingly, the petitioner claims to be entitled for the salary of the post of Assistant Director with effect from that date. Further, the case of the petitioner is that he had been made incharge Dy. Director on 14-3-1989 and discharged all the statutory functions and duty of Deputy Director till his retirement in 1990. 2. The petitioner claims that he filed several representations before the government claiming salary for the post of Asst. Director with effect from 1982 and for the post of Dy. Director with effect from March, 1989 until his retirement in April, 1990 on the principle of equal pay for equal work. But when the Goverument did not pay any heed, be filed the present writ application after lapes of eleven years of the acrual of cause of action and more than three years after his retirement on 1-7-1993. 3. Learned Counsel on being confronted that the petition is liable to be dismissed on ground of stable and belated claims, for which even suit would be time-barred, be submitted that the petitioner has made reprasentations and thus, was waiting for some positive decision in his favour. It was further submitted that the Supreme Court in the cases reported in A. I. R.1974 S C.239 and A. I. R.1991 S. C.424, has held that a court may not enquire into a belated claim is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based on sound and proper exercise of discretion and there is no inviolable rule that whenever there is any dalay, the Court must necessarily refuse to entertain the petition. 4. 4. In the pfasent case no explanation has been given by the petitioner except making a vague statement that he filed representations before the government for the delay in approaching this Court. A true copy of the representation, which has been filed as Annexure 5 is also of 15th May, 1990. In my opinion, the said explanation is not sufficient for the delay of 11 years in approaching this Court by the petitioner. In the case of R. S. Deodhar v. State of Maharashtra (1974 S C.259) the Supreme Court has held that the question as to whether a petition suffers from delay and laches is one of the discration to be followed on the facts of each case Further, the supreme Court in the case of M K. Krishnaswamy V/s. The Union of India (AIR 1973 S C.1168) where the appellants had accepted the lower grade post in 1950 and made their representation to the Government in 1951, which had been rejected and thereafter they served in class II, grade III post, and promoted to Class I (grade II) post in due course and were continuing in the service, refused to believe that the High Court would have ever entertained such stale claims in service. It was further held that even the suit would have been hopelessly time-barred and thus, declined to interfere nearly 22 years after the alleged cause of action had arisen. 5. It is true that Article 226 of the Constitution does not prescribe any period of limitation for moving the High Court for redressal of the grievance, but in my opinion, ordinarily no writ application can be entertained unless it is made soon after the sought to be protected is infringed and no relief will ordinarily be granted to a person, who does not seek his remedy under the said Article with due diligence. 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 not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lathargic. 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 not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lathargic. Unless the inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing writ petition is satisfactorily explained the petitioner will not be entitled for any relief and the High Court may decline to interfere and grent relief in the exercise of its extra ordinary power of its writ jurisdiction. As the petitioner has not given any explanation, much less a satisfactory explanation for approaching this Court after 11 years the writ petition is liable to be surnmarilly dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone. Accordingly, the writ application is summarily dismissed, but without costs. Writ Application dismissed. Q