ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents for grant of monetary benefits of ACP with statutory interest as he has already been retired from services on 01.07.2003 from the post of Panchayat Sevak. 3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the expose' of facts that have been undraped are that the petitioner had initially joined his services on 16.01.1981 under the respondents as Panchayat Sevak. Subsequently, after serving the department for about 22 years, he superannuated from the services on 01.07.2003 with unblemished service career. Thereafter, he received the entire retiral benefits, save and except the benefits of ACP. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner represented before the respondents, but nothing has been done and respondents are sitting tight over the matter. Hence, the petitioner has been compelled to knock the door of this Court for redressal of his grievances. 4. Mr. Pramod Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is entitled for the benefits of ACP as the same has not been paid though superannuated from the services in the year, 2003 itself. The respondents have not passed any order on the representation of the petitioner. Therefore, a direction may be given upon the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner. 5. No counter-affidavit has been filed. However, Mr. Sameer Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents submits that this writ petition is not maintainable in the year, 2017 as the petitioner has approached this Court after a lapse of 14 long years after his retirement and even the representation has been filed after 14 years of retirement. Learned counsel further argues that this writ petition is devoid of any merit and also on point of limitation, it is fit to be dismissed. 6. Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference in the instant writ petition. Learned counsel further argues that this writ petition is devoid of any merit and also on point of limitation, it is fit to be dismissed. 6. Be that as it may having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case is made out for interference in the instant writ petition. Admittedly, instant writ petition has been filed in the year 2017 i.e. after 14 years of retirement and nothing has been brought on record to show that petitioner has ever represented prior to 14 years of his retirement for getting benefit of ACP when he is entitled for the same and as such, writ petition is barred by law of limitation. 7. This issue has already been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Naib Subedar Lachhman Dass Vs. Union of India, reported in AIR 1977 SC 1979 , in which while dismissing the writ petition, the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that “for the first time in September, 1970 the appellant invoked the extra-ordinary powers of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for challenging the legality of an order dated 21.12.1966. The writ petition was filed after a gross delay for which there is no satisfactory explanation and, therefore, the High Court was justified in dismissing it summarily”. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board & others Vs. T.T. Murali Babu, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 , has held as under: “Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the Court would be under legal obligation to scrutinize whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the Court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant – a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. In the case at hand, though there has been four years’ delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored without any justification. That apart, in the present case, such belated approach gains more significance as the respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons -who compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van Winkle’. In our considered opinion, such delay does not deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at the very threshold.” 8. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, legal propositions and judicial pronouncements, the writ petition is devoid of any merits and is hereby dismissed.