JUDGEMENT 1. Having heard counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the connected writ application filed by the respondent-writ petitioner for the following relief: "That the present writ application is for issuance of writ in the nature of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to promote the petitioner to the post of Assistant Manager with effect from 23.2.1991 as recommended by the High Power Selection Committee constituted for the purpose of grant of promotion to the petitioner and further to direct the respondents to give the promotional benefits in terms of money from the appointed day in terms of the said recommendations of High Power Selection Committee and accordingly allow the petitioner to receive the consequential benefits thereof and also to direct the respondents to grant second time bound promotion to the petitioner in the post above than the post of Assistant Manager as the petitioner has already completed 25 years of service and also to grant monetary benefit thereof and/or pass such other order(s), direction(s), writ(s) as this Honble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case." was not maintainable on the ground of unexplained delay of more than 15 years, inasmuch as, the respondent-writ petitioner came out with a case that his promotion on the post of Assistant Manager had become due with effect from 23.2.1991. Thus his main prayer for consideration of his promotion with retrospective effect i.e. 23.2.1991 was definitely not maintainable on account of unexplained delay and laches, inasmuch as, the writ application for a cause of action on 23.2.1991. came to be filed on 5.1.2007. 2 As a matter of fact, we have also perused the writ application and we do not find any reason much less cogent reason for such delay and in fact, the only explanation coming from the records, that the respondent-writ petitioner had filed representation cannot be good enough to condone such an enormous delay of period of exceeding 15 to 16 years. 3. The learned Single Judge", in fact, has not gone into this aspect of the delay and has allowed the writ petition without considering this vital question. 3. The learned Single Judge", in fact, has not gone into this aspect of the delay and has allowed the writ petition without considering this vital question. From the counter affidavit however it is also clear that the question of delay was specifically raised but the same had still not been answered by the learned Single Judge and accordingly, we have no hesitation in allowing this appeal by setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge on the ground of delay and laches of filing of this writ petition. So far it relates to direction to the appellants for giving retrospective promotion to the writ petitioner on the post of Assistant Manager with effect from 23.2.1991 and also time bound promotion to him. 4. As with regard to claim of time bound promotion, since, it is a specific stand of the appellant corporation that the time bound promotion scheme as framed by the State Government in the year 1981 was never specifically adopted by the corporation, we would not find any merit even in that part of the claim of the respondent-writ petitioner, whereby and whereunder he had come out with a case for grant of time bound promotion with effect from 23.2.2006, specially when the whole scheme of time bound promotion has itself been scrapped and done away even by the State Government with effect from 1.1.1996. 5. At this stage learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that all his retiral benefits have been withheld by the appellant corporation as a dispute with regard to his date of birth has been belatedly entertained by the authorities or appellant corporation setting aside the order of the learned Single Judge under appeal may also amount to approving the action of the corporation in withholding the admitted retirement benefits of the respondent-writ petitioner. We are thus of the considered opinion that the respondent corporation would not have withheld the retirement benefits to which the respondent was/is legally entitled to only on the ground that a dispute has arisen with regard to his date of birth specifically when the respondent had served nearly for 30 years in the said organization. 6. We are thus of the considered opinion that the respondent corporation would not have withheld the retirement benefits to which the respondent was/is legally entitled to only on the ground that a dispute has arisen with regard to his date of birth specifically when the respondent had served nearly for 30 years in the said organization. 6. In our considered opinion, such apprehension of the learned counsel for the respondent-writ petitioner is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as, denial of retrospective promotion and time bound promotion to the respondent-writ petitioner would not mean that even his admitted retirement benefit on the post held and salary received on the date of his retirement on 31.7.2008. 7. In the above circumstances, we are of the opinion that a direction can be issued to the appellant corporation to pay all the admitted dues of retirement benefit to which the respondent is legally entitled to, within a period of 30 days or from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this, order. 8. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed so far it relates to the directions for giving promotion to the writ petitioner with consequential benefits but with regard to payment of retirement benefits to him against the post held by him and on last salary drawn on the date of his retirement i.e. 31.7.2008, the order of the learned Single Judge is upheld. 9. It goes without saying that if in future persons similarly situated like the respondent-writ petitioner would be found entitled for any financial benefit for the period upto his date of retirement under any scheme to be framed by the corporation, he will not be denied of the same on account of the present appeal being allowed.