JUDGMENT : Rakesh Thapliyal, J. By the instant Special Appeal, the appellants are challenging the judgment and order dated 12.02.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition (S/S) No. 530 of 2019 Kailash Chandra Tewari vs. State of Uttarakhand and others. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who is now no more, was appointed as a Cane Development Inspector (Statistics) under Project at Kashipur on 08.03.1977 and retired from service on 31.03.2012. On 07.04.1998, the State of Uttar Pradesh issued a Government Order as regards payment to the employees of Statistics Project under the Cane Commissioner, whereby it was decided that posts under the Statistics Project will be abolished and the employees of Statistics Project may be adjusted in the Cane Department against the vacant post and till that date, their salaries may be paid from sugar fund. The petitioner could not be adjusted in the Cane Department and he retired from the Statistics Project in the year 2012. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached this Court in the year 2019 by filing Writ Petition No. 530 of 2019 (S/S) Kailash Chandra Tewari vs. State of Uttarakhand and others praying therein that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondent authorities to pay the arrears of salary as the dearness and additional dearness allowances and the retiral benefits and pensionary benefits, like gratuity, bonus from the date he retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation. 3. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner by observing as follows: “5. Admittedly, petitioner was working as Cane Development Inspector (Statistics) in Statistics Project and retired on 31.03.2012. From perusal of record, it transpires that during his service period, he never raised his claim. Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition is a representation moved by petitioner along with four other persons but it did not contain any signatures and it is undated. It is merely a typed copy. Whether it is received in the office of Sugar and Cane Commissioner, Kashipur is not known. It appears that petitioner woke up, when order was passed in the case of Sri Ram Autar Gangwar and thereafter, he tried to seek parity. Case of the Sri Ram Autar Gangwar is entirely different from the case of the petitioner. Whether it is received in the office of Sugar and Cane Commissioner, Kashipur is not known. It appears that petitioner woke up, when order was passed in the case of Sri Ram Autar Gangwar and thereafter, he tried to seek parity. Case of the Sri Ram Autar Gangwar is entirely different from the case of the petitioner. Petitioner retired on 31.03.2012 and after retirement he approached this Court while Sri Ram Autar Gangwar was in service when he approached the Court. Petitioner approached this Court in 2017. Petitioner never raised his claim during his service period. Petitioner had already availed his retirel benefits from the concerned Department. If for the sake of argument, it is assumed that petitioner has right to be merged in the Government Department, then from which date. Therefore, at this highly belated stage, this Court cannot direct the respondent authorities to merge the petitioner in Government Department and to pay arrears of salary and other retirement benefits.” 7. It is evident from the record that though the petitioner retired in the year 2012, he did not choose to raise his grievance immediately and he wakes-up all of a sudden in the year 2019 to raise his grievance by filing a writ petition, after lapse of a considerable period of more than seven years. The petitioner cannot take the shelter of a representation, which was filed along with four other persons, which does not even reflect the date when it was moved. The writ petition is bereft of even the basic particulars as to whom the petitioner had approached and when for his grievance. There is no sufficient explanation for the inordinate delay in invoking the jurisdiction of this Court. 8. In State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and others (1986) 4 SCC 566 , the Supreme Court observed: “…….it is well settled that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and the High Court in the exercise of its discretion does not ordinarily assist the tardy and the indolent or the acquiescent and the lethargic. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. If there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing a writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to intervene and grant relief in the exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The evolution of this rule of laches or delay is premised upon a number of factors. The High Court does not ordinarily permit a belated resort to the extraordinary remedy under the writ jurisdiction because it is likely to cause confusion and public inconvenience and bring in its train new injustices.…..” 9. We are of the view that the opinion expressed by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal, that the writ petition suffers from inordinate delay and laches does not require any interference. Save in cases where the order passed by the learned Single Judge suffers from a patent illegality, no interference is warranted in an intra-Court appeal. We are satisfied that the order under appeal does not suffer from any such infirmity. We see no reason, therefore, to entertain this Special Appeal. 10. The Special Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.