JUDGEMENT 1. appearing on behalf of all the respondents. 2. The petitioner while invoking extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this court has prayed for directing the respondents to make payment of remaining unpaid retiral dues, such as, entire provident fund amount. 3. From the pleading it is evident that the petitioner retired as Assistant Engineer from the Office of Respondent No. 3, on 31.3.1994. No plausible explanation has been given in the writ petition for slumbering over his right for payment of aforesaid dues. Besides this, in the writ petition not even a single document has been brought to show as to ever the petitioner had ever demanded justice before the authority concerned or not. 4. It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in paragraph no. 7 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that due to illness he had not earlier claimed for his aforesaid dues. 5. From the writ petition it is evident that no demand of justice was earlier made by the petitioner despite the fact that petitioner retired in the year 1994. Suddenly, in the year 2011, the petitioner has approached this court directly without approaching the authority concerned. 6. . The court is of the opinion that for invoking writ jurisdiction for the purposes of issuance of writ of Mandamus it is must to first demand justice, and if it is denied, only then, he can approach this court. 7. Accordingly, I am of the opinion that no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 8. The writ petition stands dismissed.