Judgment , J. 1. This petition seeks quashing of orders dated 4.1.2007 and 1.6.2007 Annexures PA and P.5 respectively-rejecting the claim of the petitioner to ACP Scale. 2. Case of the petitioner is that he was promoted as Deputy Director/Principal Grade-I on 12.8.1993. On 25.9.1998, Assured Career Progress (ACP) Scheme was introduced on the recommendations of 4th Pay Commission, which envisaged financial benefits on completion of 8/16/24/32 years of service if an employee did not get promotion for want of promotional avenues. After 12.8.1993, the petitioner completed 8 years on 11.8.2001 without any promotion. He was placed under suspension on 5.1.2001 on a complaint of purchase of car without permission of the department and was awarded punishment of `Censure. He was reinstated on 9.7.2004 and the period of suspension was treated as duty period. The petitioner represented for ACP scale and a proposal was forwarded. The petitioner was retired prematurely on 13.7.2006. His claim of completion of 8 years of service was rejected. He gave a legal notice which has also been rejected. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the year 2001, he became entitled to higher pay scale/proficiency step up. He relied upon judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in M.R. Gupta v. Union of India and others, (1995)5 SCC 628; 1995(5) SLR 221 (SC], wherein it was held that issue of fixation of pay is continuing cause of action for future and also for the period which was within limitation. 4. We are of the view that the petition filed for the first time, six years after accrual of the cause of action, cannot be entertained. It is well settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary remedy and cannot be exercised if there is unexplained delay in moving the Court. Reference may be made to judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in Karnataka Power Corporation Limited v. V.K. Thangappan and another, AIR 2006 SC 1581 : [2006(3) SLR 27 (SC]. 5. Having regard to the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the petition is liable to be dismissed can the principle of laches.