Manmohan Sarin ( 1 ) PETITIONER is aggrieved by an order passed by the Ministry of External Affairs, rejecting petitioner s request for permission under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure for instituting proceedings against the Embassy of Kuwait. ( 2 ) PETITIONER was employed as a Security Guard with the Kuwait Embassy from June, 1973. He continued in this position till 30th of June, 1999, when his services were terminated. Petitioner relies on letters written by the Embassy of Kuwait, acknowledging the good work of the petitioner and a certificate issued stating that he discharged his functions honestly and with a sense of responsibility. Admittedly, petitioner has been paid a sum of Rs. 2,14,625. 00 towards dues payable to him on termination of his service in terms of the service contract with the Embassy of Kuwait. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner states that initially his request was not being considered, which led him to file Civil Writ Petition No. 2397 of 2000, wherein a direction was issued to dispose of petitioner s application under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Petitioner s grievance now being agitated is that on 29. 5. 2000, he received a letter from the Deputy Chief of Protocol, asking him to furnish details of payments received from the Embassy as in its absence they were not in a position to examine the exact position in this regard. Petitioner states that his information was supplied by him vide his letter dated 22. 6. 2000, but prior to the said date his application was rejected vide letter dated 12. 6. 2000. Petitioner, who had complained of non-disposal of his application under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure and filed a writ petition for that purpose, cannot complain that respon- dents have disposed of the application without awaiting the information which he was supposed to furnish. The default, if any, lies with the petitioner only. ( 4 ) LEAVING this apart, I have, at the request of Counsel for the petitioner, examined the letter of 22. 6. 2000, wherein he has furnished details of the amounts claimed by him. The details furnished have been dealt with in the order dated 12. 6. 2000 on the basis of information received from the Kuwait Embassy. ( 4 ) LEAVING this apart, I have, at the request of Counsel for the petitioner, examined the letter of 22. 6. 2000, wherein he has furnished details of the amounts claimed by him. The details furnished have been dealt with in the order dated 12. 6. 2000 on the basis of information received from the Kuwait Embassy. It may be noted that under the service contract, the service of the petitioner was terminable with a notice of two months. Petitioner has already been paid the amounts due under the terms of the service contract, including encashment of leave. Petitioner s claim is in respect of duties performed by him on the Gazetted holidays during the last 26 years as also overtime charge for the shift work done by him. The Kuwait Embassy had clarified to the Ministry that duties for security guards, including the petitioner, were in three shifts, i. e. morning, afternoon and night. Accordingly, petitioner s claim for overtime charges would not lie since his duties were regulated on shifts. This claim, as also the claim for extra payment for work on Gazetted holidays, are sought to be belatedly asserted after 26 years. ( 5 ) IN view of the foregoing discussion, no ground is made out for interference, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with the decision of the respondent declining permission under Section 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The writ petition has no merit and is dismissed.