JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri S.K. Kakkar, learned counsel for the respondent Bank, and Sri Gyanendra Kumar Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 23rd February, 2016, whereby his representation made for grant of additional increments, in terms of the circular dated 2.9.1970 has been rejected, holding that petitioner has already been granted benefit of such circular. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the recital in the order about benefit having been granted to him is factually incorrect, and that such benefit has not been granted. 4. The submission is opposed by Sri S.K. Kakkar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Bank, who submits that admittedly, petitioner is raising dispute with regard to grant of increments for a period between 1974 to 1980, and for such purposes, a representation has been filed after considerable delay, which is not liable to be otherwise entertained. The findings in the order are also supported by the counsel for the Bank. 5. The order under challenge clearly records that the benefit, which was admissible to petitioner, has already been granted. The dispute, which is being raised, pertains to the year 1974 to 1980, and petitioner has not been able to explain as to why such dispute is being raised, after expiry of more than three decades. Petitioner having worked with the respondent Bank has also superannuated in the year 2015, and only thereafter, the grievance is being pressed. In case petitioner was not satisfied with denial of increments, it was open for him to have taken recourse to law, within a reasonable period of time. Such stale claims are not required to be entertained, specially after the petitioner has retired. Cause of action, which is sought to be raised by the writ petition, had arisen between the year 1974 to 1980, and it is otherwise settled that mere making of representation does not extend the period of limitation, in State of Tripura Vs. Arabinda Chakraborty [ 2014 (6) SCC 460 ]. 6. No interference in the order impugned, therefore, is called for. The writ petition, consequently, fails, and is dismissed.