Judgment :- Per ARIJIT PASAYAT, C.J. Conclusions of learned single Judge holding that first respondent (hereinafter pension is challenged by the State in this appeal under Section 5 of the Kerala High Court Act, 1958 (in short 'Act'). Factual position is undisputed and has to be noted in brief. Employee was serving as a Lecturer in Chemistry in Catholicate College, Pathanamthitta. He was appointed as lecturer on June 6, 1966 and was confirmed in that post from August 1, 1968 after approval. He went abroad availing leave without allowance for a period of five years from November 27, 1975 to November 27, 1980. Thereafter, he sought for extension of leave for another period of five years which was rejected by the manager of the College. His representation for reappointment and in the alternative, for sanctioning of pension was also rejected. Original Petition (OP 3384 of 1994) was filed with two prayers, namely, for reinstatement or in the alternative for grant of pension. At the time of hearing, only the prayer relating to &)rant of pension was pressed. Stand of the State and the manager, in essence, was that employee having not Joined service on expiry of leave, his service was terminated and, therefore he was not entitled to pension under Rule 29 (a) of Part III of Kerala Service Rules, 1959 (in short 'KSR'). Learned single Judge observed that procedure required to be adopted in terms of Rule 9 of Appendix XII-A of KSR was not followed and, therefore, termination was bad. Having so concluded, learned Judge further observed that since employee had put in 9 years 5 months and 22 days service, it was to be considered as 10 years in terms of the proviso to Rule 57 of Part III, KSR.Challenge by State to the order of learned single Judge is essentially on two grounds. Firstly, it is submitted that the order of termination was assailed after about 15 years for the first time in the Writ application and no explanation, whatsoever, was offered for delay. Secondly, it is submitted that in view of undisputed position that was unauthorised absence on the part of employee, Rule 9 of Appendix XII-A of KSR has been complied with. Secondly, it is submitted that in view of undisputed position that was unauthorised absence on the part of employee, Rule 9 of Appendix XII-A of KSR has been complied with. Learned counsel for employee, however, submitted that though writ application was filed in the year 1994, representations were being made before various authorities and, therefore, there is no delay in approaching this Court. Further, he submitted that the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960 (in short 'CCA Rules') lay down a particular procedure and Rule 9 of Appendix XII-A of K.S.R. clearly mandates observance of the procedure. That having not been done, termination was rightly held to be bad. Rule 9 in Appendix XII-A of KSR prescribes certain methodology to be adopted for terminating service of an employee who remains unauthorisedly absent without getting leave sanctioned. Rules in Appendix XII-A apply to private college employees also. Therefore, Rule 9 was clearly applicable to the facts of the case. Admittedly, procedure has not been followed. The rule reads as follows : "9. Those officers who absent themselves unauthorisedly without getting the leave sanctioned under these rules shall he proceeded against and his service terminated after following the procedure laid down in the Kerala Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1960. Requests for re-entertainment in Government service in such cases as well as in cases covered by Rule 6 above will be summarily rejected.Bare reading of the provisions makes it clear that an officer who absents unauthorisedly without getting leave sanctioned can be proceeded against and his service can be terminated. But, there is a requirement to follow prescribed procedure in terms of CCA Rules. Though it is conceded by learned counsel for the employee that unauthorised absence in the circumstances exposed him to termination, yet it is submitted that same could have been done after following specified procedure. But the question is whether order of termination which continued unchallenged for nearly 15 years, can be nullified after long period of unexplained action. We find from records that appellants have taken a definite stand about delayed approach to Court. But, same has not been dealt with in the judgment, though admittedly said point was urged by the State before learned single Judge. Contextual facts depict that there was no challenge to the order for, nearly 15 years. We find from records that appellants have taken a definite stand about delayed approach to Court. But, same has not been dealt with in the judgment, though admittedly said point was urged by the State before learned single Judge. Contextual facts depict that there was no challenge to the order for, nearly 15 years. It is now well settled principle of law that while no period of limitation is fixed, but in the normal course of events, the period a party is required to file a civil proceeding ought to be the guiding factor. While it is true that the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is available to mitigate the sufferings of the people in general, but it is not out of place to mention that this extraordinary jurisdiction has been conferred on to the law Courts on a very sound equitable principle. Hence, equitable doctrine namely, delay defeats equity has its fullest application in the matter of grant of relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. Discretionary relief can be had provided one has not, by his act or omission, given a go-bye to his rights. Equity favours a vigilant rather than an indolent litigant. This position has been highlighted by Apex Court in M. C. Ahmednagar v. Shah Hyder Beig 2000 (1) SCALE 124. Above being the basic tenet of law, employee was required to show reason for his delayed approach. Except taking of repeated plea of having made representation nothing further was placed on record. Making representations does not stall running of time and is not a sound ground to explain delay. Learned single Judge was, therefore, clearly in error in granting relief to the employee. We allow State's appeal by reversing judgment of learned single Judge.The Writ Appeal is allowed.