G. P. MATHUR, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition under Article 226 of the Constitution has been filed praying for the following reliefs : (i) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondent that they should reinstate the petitioner with salary and back wages full service benefit as Head Constable No. 4-PA, Police Line, Fatehpur. (ii) Issue a writ or order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents that they should pay the pension and post retirement benefit from the date of superannuation when the attained the age of superannuation. (iii) Issue a writ or order or direction which this Honble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the present writ petition. Subsequently, and amendment application has been filed on 9-10-1998 praying that the petitioner may be permitted to add the following relief: "to issue a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the removal order dated 14-11-1973 (Annexure 2) and judgment dated 3-3-1981 (Annexure 3passed by the Tribunal. " ( 2 ) THE facts, which emerge out from the averments made in the writ petition and the counter-affidavit, show that the petitioner was recruited to the post of Constable on 11-11-1962 and was promoted as Head Constable in 1968. A FIR was lodged against the petitioner under sections 148, 149, 121, 121-A, 122, 395 and 427, IPC, Section 3, Police Act and Rule 43 of the defence of India Rules, 1971 read with Section 5 of Defence of India Act on 22-5-1973. He was dismissed from service on 14-11-1973. The petitioner along with seven other was prosecuted in s. T. No. A-48 of 1974 before the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Fatehpur, but he was acquitted by the judgment and order dated 4-8-1979 as all the witnesses of fact turned hostile. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred claim petition No. 1008 (T)/v/80 before the U. P. Public Services tribunal, Lucknow for setting aside the dismissal order. The claim petition was however dismissed by the Tribunal on 3-3-1981. ( 3 ) THE main relief claimed in the writ petition is that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with salary and back-wages and also to pay him pension and post-retirement benefits from the date of superannuation. The claim petition was however dismissed by the Tribunal on 3-3-1981. ( 3 ) THE main relief claimed in the writ petition is that a writ of mandamus be issued commanding the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with salary and back-wages and also to pay him pension and post-retirement benefits from the date of superannuation. It is stated in paragraph 7 of the writ petition that the petitioner was dismissed from service on 14-11-1973. It appears that he did not challenge the dismissal order immediately but filed a claim petition before the tribunal after he was acquitted by the learned IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge on 4-8-1979. The claim petition filed on the year 1980 was also dismissed on 3-3-1981. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been dismissed from service and his claim petition has also been dismissed, the relief sought by the petitioner that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to reinstate him in service with back-wages cannot be granted. Realising the aforesaid difficulty, the petitioner filed an amendment application on 9-10-1998 wherein, it was prayed that the petitioner may be permitted to add a prayer to the effect that a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued for quashing the removal order dated 14-11-1973 and judgment and order dated 3-3-1981 of the U. P. Public Services Tribunal. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner was dismissed from service on 14-11-1973 and the judgment of the Tribunal was pronounced on 3-3-1981. The petitioner did not challenge the aforesaid orders and allowed the judgment of the Tribunal to become final. The writ petition was filed on 27-1-1998 i. e. after 17 years of the judgment delivered by the Tribunal. In the writ petition no relief for quashing of the dismissal order or quashing of the judgment of the Tribunal had been claimed. The said relief was claimed by way of amendment application, which was filed on 9-10-1998. The writ petition has been filed after an inordinate delay and the same is liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches. Shri R. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been representing to the State Government and therefore he did not file the writ petition earlier. In our opinion, making of representation is no explanation for the unusual long delay, which has occurred in filing the writ petition. Shri R. N. Tripathi, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had been representing to the State Government and therefore he did not file the writ petition earlier. In our opinion, making of representation is no explanation for the unusual long delay, which has occurred in filing the writ petition. After the judgment of the Tribunal had been pronounced, the petitioner should have immediately challenged the same before the appropriate forum. Mere filing of representations could not in any way alter or set aside the judgment rendered by Public services Tribunal. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel has also submitted that in some other cases of police personnel involved in pac revolt, orders in their favour had been passed by the High Court and, therefore, a similar order may also be passed in case of the petitioner. In our opinion, the contention raised has no substance. The copy of the order dated 14-11-1973 (Annexure 2 to the writ petition) shows that the Governor had dismissed the petitioner from service in exercise of power conferred by clause (c) of Proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. The judgment in Writ Petition No. 45931 of 1992, Chhabinath Singh v. U. P. Public Services Tribunal and others (Annexure 4 to the writ petition) shows that petitioner therein had been convicted by Sessions Judge, Varanasi under various sections of the IPC including Section 302, IPC and Section 7 (c) of UPPAC Act, 1946. He preferred an appeal being Criminal Appeal No. 2823 of 1976, which was allowed by this court. Thereafter, he filed a claim petition before the U. P. Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow, which was dismissed on 9-9-1992 and thereafter he filed a writ petition, which was allowed with certain directions. The number of the writ petition shows that it was filed in the year 1992 which means within a few months of the judgment of the Tribunal, which had been pronounced on 9-9-1992. Therefore, this case can be of no assistance to the petitioner. The learned Counsel has also relied on the judgment and order dated 26-9-1997 rendered in Writ Petition No. 46061 of 1993. Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P. and others. The judgment shows that the petitioner of the said case namely, Vijay Bahadur Singh was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge and was acquitted in appeal by the High Court on 21-12-1992. Vijay Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P. and others. The judgment shows that the petitioner of the said case namely, Vijay Bahadur Singh was convicted by the learned Sessions Judge and was acquitted in appeal by the High Court on 21-12-1992. Thereafter, he applied for reinstatement. As no order was passed by the authorities, he filed a writ petition on 23-12-1993 which was ultimately allowed by the judgment and order dated 26-9-1997. Here the writ petition was filed within a reasonable time of the acquittal of the person concerned. As mentioned earlier, the petitioner has offered no acceptable explanation as to why he did not challenge the order of the tribunal dated 3-3-1981 dismissing his claim petition within a reasonable time and why he chose to file a writ petition as late as in the year 1998. ( 5 ) THERE is another aspect of the case, which deserves notice. In the affidavit filed in support of the amendment application, which was sworn on 8-10-1998, the petitioner has given his age as 60 years. It is obvious that the petitioner has already attained the age of superannuation and is no longer in service. In these circumstances, no relief for reinstatement can be granted. ( 6 ) THE case in hand is identical to Bhop Singh v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1414 , wherein the claim of the employee for setting aside the order of dismissal from service and reinstatement was refused on the ground of delay and laches even though a similarly placed employee who had approached the Court earlier had been granted relief. The contention raised on the ground that similar treatment be given was repelled. The claim made by the petitioner is stale and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of laches. ( 7 ) FOR the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is dismissed at the admission stage.