ORDER : In this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the resolution dated 30th May, 1994 of the Bihar. State Electricity Board and the pay slip issued to him on 30th June, 1984 in which he has been allowed leave without pay for the period 14.2.1989 to 4.4.1989. 2. The present writ petition was filed after lapse of more than three years of the impugned resolution. The only explanation given for approaching this Court after lapse of such a long time is that the petitioner was pursuing his representation before the authority of the Board which was also finally disposed of by an ORDER :dated 9.6.1995 (Annexure 12). 3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in view of various standing ORDER :s of the Board the petitioner was legitimately pursuing his representation before the authority concerned and since the representation of the petitioner was rejected by one line ORDER :. he had legitimate expectation that his grievance would be redressed by the Board. As such, he filed another representation to the Secretary of the Board which has not been disposed of despite reminders. Since the said representation was not disposed of, the petitioner moved this Court by filing the present writ petition on 2.12.1997. 4. Thus, from the aforementioned submissions. I find that the only explanation for delay in approaching this Court after lapse of three and a half years of the initial ORDER :is by filing representations and sending reminders not provided for under any statutory provision. The Supreme Court in the case of J.N. Maltiar vs. State of Bihar, reported in AIR 1973 S.C. 1343 , has held, that the delay by unprovided for memorials is not excusable. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited vs. Dist. Board, Bhojpur, reported in AIR 1993 S.C.802. He referred to paragraph 13 of the said JUDGMENT : wherein the Supreme Court has held that the Court may not enquire into belated and stale claim is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based own sound and proper exercise of discretion. Each case must depend upon its own facts. He referred to paragraph 13 of the said JUDGMENT : wherein the Supreme Court has held that the Court may not enquire into belated and stale claim is not a rule of law but a rule of practice based own sound and proper exercise of discretion. Each case must depend upon its own facts. It has been held that the test is not to physical running of time, where the circumstances justifying the conduct exists, the illegality which is manifest cannot be sustained on the sole ground of laches. 6. In the said case, however, the facts were that the appellant had approached the Court against the levy which is beyond the authority and was questioned though belatedly in the pending proceedings after the pronouncement of the High Court in the matter relating to subsequent ORDER :s. Under such circumstances. the Apex Court held that the claim of the appellant cannot be turned down on the sole ground of delay. 7. The said decision in my opinion has no application to the facts of the present case. In fact, the initial ORDER :denying payment of salary for the period 14.2.1989 to 4.4.1989 was passed on 20th May. 1994. Thus, the cause of action for the petitioner arose on the said date and I am afraid that he can maintain even a regular suit against such resolution of the Board. Writ is an extraordinary expeditious remedy available to a citizen under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and the delay and laches have been held repeatedly to debar a person sleeping from agitating his grievance before the High Court under its writ jurisdiction. 8. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of J.N.Maltiar vs. State of Bihar (supra), in my opinion, in the facts and circumstances of the present case. the writ application suffers from gross delay and laches. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is summarily dismissed.