JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Mr. Jagdish Prasad No. 1, learned counsel for the appellant. 2. In this appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, it is perceptible that the order dated 18.8.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 9908 of 2009 whereby he has declined to nullify the order dated 26.6.2008 contained in Annexure-1, wherein representation pertaining to retrenchment order passed on 8.6.1990 by the competent authority was rejected on the ground that appointment was against a non-sanctioned post and without following norms of appointment. 3. In support of the appeal it is submitted by Mr. Prasad that by impugned order dated 8.6.1990 five persons including appellant were retrenched but latetters after expiration of one year four were taken back in service but the appellant has not been reinstated. It is urged by him, series of representations were made and he knocked at the door of the competent authority time and again agitating his grievance but all went in vain and eventually representation was dealt with and an order came to be passed on 26.6.2008. In essentiality, learned counsel submitted that it is a fit case wherein the learned Single Judge should have interfered with. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge had correctly declined to interfere as claim of the appellant is absolutely stale. A litigant cannot behave like a Rip Van Winkle and get up after long span of time to find a new world. He cannot also afford to sleep like KumbaKarna. Delayed disposal of representation does not give rise to a fresh cause of action like a phoenix. 5. We are absolutely in agreement with the learned Single Judge that the doctrine of delay and laches gets squarely attracted to the case at hand. 6. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the appeal stands dismissed.