JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. 1. Petitioner while working as Lecturer Electronics & Communication Engineering, Regional Engineering College, Hazratbal, Srinagar, now National Institute of Technology, (hereafter for short NIT) proceeded on 30 day's, earned leave w.e.f. 23.03.1992 to 23.04.1992. This was followed by earned leave for a period of 66 day's, sanctioned vide Order No. 88 of 1992, dated 23.04.1992. He, on expiry of earned leave granted, did not report to his duty and claims to have sought extension in leave by two years. His prayer for extension in leave was declined by respondent institute. However, petitioner continued to stay away his duty from 27.06.1992 to 18.05.1997. He reported to his duty on 18.05.1997. He was to join. The action taken by Principal was confirmed/approved by the Board of Governors vide Order No. Board-97/10 dated 15.10.1997. His unauthorized absence in terms of aforesaid order was treated as leave without pay. 2. Petitioner, after he was allowed by the Principal of the respondent Institute, to re-join and his action confirmed/approved by Board of Governors, on 18.04.2007, approached Dean NIT, for grant of annual increment w.e.f. June, 1997. He insisted that once, Board of Governors had treated his period of absence as leave without pay, he would be entitled to annual increment for the period in question. The request was reiterated in another communication dated 09.08.2007, addressed to Director of respondent Institute. Petitioner addressed a third communication on the subject on 13.02.2008 to Dy. Registrar (Adm.) of the respondent Institute. The communications are appended as Annexure "C" to the writ petition. 3. When the repeated representations made did not evoke any response, petitioner came up with the writ petition on hand. Petitioner, on the strength of averments made in the petition and documents placed on record seeks following relief:- i) A writ of Mandamus, commanding respondents to treat the period from 27.06.1992 to 18.05.1997 as approved service and release increments thereof in favour of the petitioner. ii) A writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner at par with his colleagues namely Dr. Ruhi Naz Mir, Associate Professor, Department of Computer Sciences, and Prof. A.A. Bandh, Associate Professor, Metallurgical Engineer Department, in the respondent institute. 4. ii) A writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents to treat the petitioner at par with his colleagues namely Dr. Ruhi Naz Mir, Associate Professor, Department of Computer Sciences, and Prof. A.A. Bandh, Associate Professor, Metallurgical Engineer Department, in the respondent institute. 4. Respondents 1 & 2 oppose writ petition on the ground that petitioner during his unauthorized absence served in Saudi Bin-Ladin Group (O&M) (Saudi Arabia) from 23.03.92 to 07.12.1995 as Electronics and Communications Engineer and worked as Senior Application Engineer from 10.12.1995 to 31.01.1997 with advanced synergic Microsysians Limited Bangalore, and therefore, would not be entitled to any annual increment. 5. It is pleaded that only a faculty member granted leave to work against a faculty position or to avail fellowship or Research-cum-Teaching assignment in terms of rules is to be treated on approved service and allowed annual increments for such period. 6. It is pointed out that as petitioner during his unauthorized absence did not work on a teaching or like assignment but went for commercial appointment outside the Institute, he would not be entitled to annual increment. Rule quoted in para 5 of the writ petition, according to respondents, itself belies petitioner's claim for annual increment during the period of absence. It is stated that in terms of rule quoted, petitioner would not be entitled to annual increments during the period 1992 to 1997. 7. Respondents distinguish petitioner's case and that of respondents 3 & 4 on the ground that respondent No. 3 was granted leave without pay w.e.f. 15.11.1996 to 25.03.1999 with permission to serve as Lecturer (Computer Engineering) at the Caledonian College of Engineering, Sultanate of Oman, and respondent No. 4 was also allowed to work on academic assignment. 8. Petitioner in his rejoinder filed on 16.12.2014 pleaded that in terms of Rule 24 of Leave Rules approved by Board of Governors vide resolution No. 38/29 dated 02.06.1981, service rendered by the petitioner while working as Electronics and Communication Engineer and as Senior Application Engineer with private Companies is to be taken as approved service and petitioner, therefore, is entitled to annual increment during the said period. It is pleaded that after respondents allowed the petitioner to rejoin his duty and action of the Principal was approved/confirmed by Board of Governors and the period of absence treated as leave without pay, it was no more open to the respondents to deny annual increments to the petitioner, as annual increment would be one of the benefits attached to the approved service. Petitioner insists that though he worked with private companies in Saudi Arabia and Bangalore, during the period of absence, yet having regard to the nature of duties performed, on such assignment, petitioner gained technical experience, entitling him together with other benefits, to the annual increments for the said period. 9. It is pointed out that Technical experience gained while working with Saudi Bin-Ladin Group and synergic Microsysians is even recognized by All India Institute for Technical Education while making appointments against the faculty position in Engineering Colleges and other such institutions. Reliance is placed on order dated 22.05.2012 whereby two annual increments stand sanctioned in favour of one Dr. Nazir Ahmad Sheikh, Associate Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, for the period he served in Al-Qaseem University Saudi Arabia. 10. I have gone through the pleadings and have heard learned counsel for the parties. 11. Petitioner's case has its edifice on the Rule relating to grant of annual increments during the period of leave without pay. It is, therefore, necessary to notice the Rule relied upon by the petitioner. It is reproduced in para 5 of the writ petition and reads as under:- "Absence on leave without pay granted to a teacher by the Institute to accept an invitation to a teaching post or fellowship or Research-Cum-Teaching post or an Assignment for Technical OR Academic work of importance such as translation & coining of works etc. will be treated as approved services and the person concerned entitled to earn increment. 12. A closer look at the Rule would reveal that benefit provided under the Rule is available to a member of Teaching Staff granted leave without pay to accept the invitation to the Teaching Post or Fellowship or Research-Cum-Teaching post or an Assignment for Technical OR Academic work of importance. 12. A closer look at the Rule would reveal that benefit provided under the Rule is available to a member of Teaching Staff granted leave without pay to accept the invitation to the Teaching Post or Fellowship or Research-Cum-Teaching post or an Assignment for Technical OR Academic work of importance. The Rule, therefore, provides that as and when a member of the Teaching Staff receives an invitation to work on a Teaching post etc., in a different University/Institute, he or she may be granted leave without pay to join against the Teaching Post etc. In other words, absence on leave without pay, in such a case would be permitted by the Institute. The member of the Teaching Staff allowed to proceed on leave without pay in terms of Rule is to be treated as on "Approved Service" during the period he/she serves against the Teaching Post or Fellowship or Research-Cum-Teaching post etc. in another University/Institute and allowed annual increment for the period spent on such assignment. 13. In the present case, petitioner, admittedly, did not seek any permission from the respondent Institute to accept the assignment. Let us, for a while, keep aside the question whether the assignment accepted by the petitioner with Saudi Bin-Ladin Group (O&M) (Saudi Arabia) and Advanced Synergic Microsysians Limited Bangalore, can be treated as Teaching Post or Research-Cum-Teaching post or an Assignment for Technical OR Academic work of importance. In the first place, let it be examined whether the petitioner because of his conduct during the period 1992 to 1997 can claim benefit under the Rule. 14. Petitioner, as already stated, has of his own stayed away from duty w.e.f. 27.06.1992 to 18.05.1997. He during the said period of absence, served as Electronics and Communication Engineer, with Saudi Bin-Ladin Group (O&M) (Saudi Arabia) and Advanced Synergic Microsysians Limited Bangalore. Petitioner, as required in terms of Rule relied upon by him, did not seek permission of the Institute to take up the assignment. He instead unauthorizedly, absented himself from duty to serve the above Organizations. Petitioner, therefore, cannot claim any benefit under the Rule and ask for annual increments during the period of his unauthorized absence. 15. The above discussion apart, Rule requires the assignment proposed to be taken up to be Teaching Assignment, or Fellowship or Research-Cum-Teaching based work. The rationale behind the Rule is not difficult to understand. Petitioner, therefore, cannot claim any benefit under the Rule and ask for annual increments during the period of his unauthorized absence. 15. The above discussion apart, Rule requires the assignment proposed to be taken up to be Teaching Assignment, or Fellowship or Research-Cum-Teaching based work. The rationale behind the Rule is not difficult to understand. Once a member of the teaching staff of the institute receives an invitation to serve a different University on the Teaching Post, the Institute gets the opportunity to find out the nature of assignment such a member is offered by other University or Institution. It is only after Institute is satisfied that such a member by working in a different University on a teaching post is to enhance his knowledge and expertise and that on his return to Institute would be in a better position to serve the Institute and student community, that the Institute permits him to proceed on leave without pay so that he is in a position to accept the assignment. It is, therefore, necessary that the Institute has the opportunity to examine the true nature of the duty a member of the Teaching Staff has to perform on the Teaching or Research assignment in other University or Institute. 16. In the present case, petitioner by joining the Saudi Bin-Ladin Company, on his own, deprived the Institute of an opportunity to examine whether the assignment petitioner was accepting fell within the ambit of the Rule. The petitioner, as a matter of fact, sought commercial employment in a private Company. The petitioner, therefore, serving the above Company on a non-teaching and non-Research assignment cannot turn around to ask for annual increments for the period of his unauthorized absence. 17. Petitioner's grievance is that he has been visited with a discriminatory treatment in as much as, the benefit claimed has been extended to the Private respondents and his other colleagues mentioned in the rejoinder, is grossly misplaced. The private respondents, did not, like the petitioner unauthorizedly absent themselves from duty and during the period of unauthorized absence, served on a commercial assignment. Dr. Ruhi Naz- respondent No. 3 was granted leave without pay to serve as Lecturer (Computer Engineering) at the Coledonian College of Engineering, Sultanate of Oman, and Dr. Nazir Ahmad Sheikh was also granted benefit similarly to serve in Al-Qaseem University Saudi Arabia. 18. Dr. Ruhi Naz- respondent No. 3 was granted leave without pay to serve as Lecturer (Computer Engineering) at the Coledonian College of Engineering, Sultanate of Oman, and Dr. Nazir Ahmad Sheikh was also granted benefit similarly to serve in Al-Qaseem University Saudi Arabia. 18. Petitioner's case is distinguishable from the case of private respondents and his other colleagues in the Institute. Petitioner, therefore, cannot be heard saying that he has been exposed to hostile discrimination by denying him the annual increments for the period of his unauthorized absence. 19. The above discussion apart, petitioner's claim badly suffers from delay and laches. Petitioner after his more than five years unauthorized absence, was permitted by the Principal Regional Engineering College, Hazratbal, Srinagar to re-join his duty. The decision was confirmed by the Board of Governors and the period of leave treated as leave without pay. 20. Petitioner has approached this court with the writ petition on hand 13 years after cause accrued to him to ask for the benefit of annual increments for the period of unauthorised absence. Petitioner has slept over the matter for 13 long years. Only because petitioner made a few representations in the year 2007, 2008, to the respondents for release of annual increments for the period in question, would not condone the delay in working out the remedy available under law. Reference in this regard may be made to S.S. Rathore v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1990 SC 10 . This further makes a severe dent in the petitioner's case and does not entitle him to seek a relief, essentially equitable in character. For the reasons discussed and having regard to the law laid down in petitioner's case is bereft of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.