ORDER : 1. The instant intra-court appeal, under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against order dated 10.08.2022 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6317 of 2013, whereby and whereunder the claim of the writ petitioner was rejected so far it relates to the grant of junior and senior selection grade. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the writ petition, read as under. 3. The petitioner was initially appointed to the post of Work Sarkaar on 20.04.1966 at Tenughat Dam Division No. VI and subsequently, he was appointed and posted as Correspondence Clerk vide Memo dated 14.06.1967 at Tenughat Dam-VI and finally on attaining the age of superannuation he retired on 30.06.1999. 4. It is the case of the petitioner that the services of the petitioner was made permanent w.e.f. 09.05.1972 vide order dated 05.09.1989. He was further declared successful in Hindi Noting Examination vide letter dated 30.06.1970 as also passed the Departmental Accounts Examination in the year 1994 conducted by the Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. It has been contended that the petitioner being the senior most Correspondence Clerk in Minor Irrigation Division, Dumka, was ordered to work against the sanctioned post of Head Clerk from which he retired. 5. It is further case of the petitioner that when the legitimate due of the petitioner was not paid, he approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6098 of 2004, which was disposed of vide order dated 04.03.2009. In compliance thereof, draft was prepared and paid to him but without taking into account the benefit of junior and senior selection grade, as was given to his counterparts. 6. Aggrieved thereof, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6317 of 2013, which was dismissed on two counts; first similar relief was sought for in the earlier round of litigation i.e. in W.P. (S) No. 6098 of 2004 but no relief was granted to the petitioner and for the same and similar relief again writ petition has been filed; and secondly the claim of the petitioner relates to the year 1976 and initial cause of action for such claim arose as back as in the year 1989, against which the instant intra-court appeal has been filed. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the when petitioner was not granted benefit of junior and selection grade as also the retiral benefit, he filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6098 of 2004, which was disposed of vide order dated 04.03.2009 whereby and whereunder the matter was disposed of making therein reference of order passed in Lok Adalat wherein liberty was granted to renew his prayer in case the draft is not paid. It has been contended that though draft has been handed over to the petitioner but that does not include the benefit accrued for junior and senior selection grade, therefore, the writ petitioner has again to approach this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 6317 of 2013, which has been dismissed without appreciating the fact in right perspective that even though the benefit of junior and senior selection grade has not been granted, which was not taken care of in order passed in W.P. (S) No. 6098 of 2004 and as such the learned Single Judge ought to have considered the issue of grant of junior/senior selection but the claim has been rejected on the ground that the writ petitioner has sought for the same relief as has been sought in W.P. (S) No. 6098 of 2004 i.e. in earlier round of litigation, however, issue of payment of retiral benefit was decided by passing an order to the effect that direction was passed upon the petitioner to collect the demand draft so made by the respondents. 8. It has been contended that the issue of junior/senior selection grade remain inconclusive and as such the same ought to have been decided by the learned Single Judge but having not done so error has been committed and hence the order passed by learned Single Judge requires interference by this Court. 9. Per contra, Ms. Shivani Kapoor, learned AC to SC II, appearing for the respondents-State of Jharkhand has submitted by defending the order passed by learned Single Judge that in earlier round of litigation i.e. in W.P. (S) No. 6098 of 2004 decided on 04.03.2009 prayer was also made for extending the benefit of junior/senior selection grade. 9. Per contra, Ms. Shivani Kapoor, learned AC to SC II, appearing for the respondents-State of Jharkhand has submitted by defending the order passed by learned Single Judge that in earlier round of litigation i.e. in W.P. (S) No. 6098 of 2004 decided on 04.03.2009 prayer was also made for extending the benefit of junior/senior selection grade. It has further been contended that the learned Single Judge while disposing of the writ petition has held that amount which is payable is ready to be paid by the respondents by way of demand drafts, hence disposed of the writ petition granting liberty only to the effect that if draft is not paid he may renew his prayer and since amount mentioned in draft has been paid, nothing remains to be decided in this writ petition and hence not maintainable. 10. It has further been submitted that demand drafts, as per entitlement of the petitioner have been paid to the petitioner, except one demand draft bearing no. 006147 dated 06.05.2006 which is lying with the Registry of this Court and its validity has expired and taking the said ground together with the earlier one the writ petition was dismissed, which cannot be said to suffer from error. 11. Further, so far as unpaid amount of Rs. 10,277 is concerned, the learned Single Judge has taken care of same by making an observation that on the basis of submission of learned counsel for the petitioner for re-validation the demand draft so that the writ petitioner may collect it from the registry. 12. Learned Single Judge has passed the direction upon the respondent to take back the said demand draft from the registry of this Court and validate the same and deposit the same before the Registrar General of this Court. It was further directed that if the petitioner does not turn up to collect the same it will be open to the respondents to take back the demand draft from the Registry. 13. It has been submitted that the petitioner has not approached the learned Registrar General of this Court to collect the demand draft, however, submission has been made that if the petitioner approaches, the respondent will re-validate the same to be paid in favour of writ petitioner, as per the direction so issued by learned Single Judge at paragraph 13 of the impugned judgment. 14. 14. Learned counsel for the respondent-State in the aforesaid premise has submitted that the instant appeal lacks merit and is fit to be dismissed. 15. Mr. S.P. Roy, learned G.A. (Bihar), has adopted the argument advanced by learned counsel for the respondents-State of Jharkhand. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 17. The undisputed fact is that the writ petitioner had earlier filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6098 of 2004 seeking therein the prayer to extend the benefit of junior and senior selection grade as also the disbursement of retiral benefits. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 04.03.2009. But prior to its disposal the matter was referred before the Lok Adalat wherein the matter was settled in view of undertaking given by the respondents-State that the demand draft is ready for payment. However, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he is unable to contact his client. The learned Single Judge, considering the aforesaid facts, disposed of the writ petition with the liberty to renew the prayer in case the draft is not paid. 18. For ready reference, order dated 04.03.2009 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6098 of 2004 is reproduced herein below: “The counsel for the petitioner submits that during the sitting in the Lok Adalat the respondents have offered the draft and the same is ready for payment, however, he is unable to contact his client. Be that as it may, if the amount is payable and the respondents are ready to pay the same by way of draft, the same can certainly be collected by the petitioner. Keeping this writ petition on the hope that the petitioner will come and approach his counsel will be of no avail. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer in case the draft is not paid. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.” 19. Keeping this writ petition on the hope that the petitioner will come and approach his counsel will be of no avail. However, the petitioner is at liberty to renew his prayer in case the draft is not paid. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of.” 19. It is the case of the petitioner that as the grievance of the writ petitioner with respect to junior and senior selection grade was not decided, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 6317 of 2013, which is the subject matter of instant intra-court appeal, praying therein that for payment of entire reitral benefits including legitimate dues taking into account the benefit of junior and senior selection grade but the said writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 10.08.2022 mainly on two grounds. Firstly, similar relief was sought for in earlier round of litigation i.e. in W.P. (S) No. 6098 of 2004 and after four years of disposal of said writ petition, the present one [W.P.(S) No. 6317 of 2013] has been filed. Secondly, on the ground of delay mentioning that the initial claim of the petitioner relates to the year 1976 and the initial cause of action for such claim arose as back as in the year 1989. However, after pronouncement of judgment, on the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents-State that one demand draft being D.D. No. 006147 dated 06.05.2006 of Rs. 10,277 is lying with the Registry of this Court and its validity has already expired, direction was made to the respondents to take back the said demand draft and revalidate the same and again deposit before the learned Registrar General so as to the petitioner can collect the same from the learned Registrar General. However, if the petitioner does not turn up to collect the same, it will be open to the respondents to take back the demand draft from the Registry. 20. So far submission of the petitioner that though prayer was made in the first round of litigation regarding entitlement of junior/senior selection grade by the petitioner but that was not dealt with is concerned, this Court is of the considered view that it was incumbent upon the concerned party to file review of the said order in case of non-consideration of the prayer and pleading so made by the party aggrieved or to file appeal. However, after going through order dated 04.03.2009 passed in W.P. (S) No. 6098 of 2004, it appears that the respondents-State offered draft for settlement of dispute in presence of learned counsel for the petitioner, which the learned counsel for the petitioner did not dispute. Accordingly, the amount have been paid save and except Rs. 10,277/- which is lying with the Registrar General of this Court by way of demand draft, as contended by learned counsel for the parties. 21. Even accepting the fact that the issue of junior/senior selection grade was not taken into consideration by learned Single Judge in W.P. (S) No. 6098 of 2004 but even then it is not available for the writ petitioner to file another writ petition without questioning the order passed in the earlier writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6098 of 2004 rather the aforesaid order ought to have been challenged before the higher forum or review before the same Court but the appellant has chosen not to avail either of the remedy and straightway filed writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 6317 of 2013. 22. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the second writ petition on the same issue cannot be entertained unless liberty to that effect if granted by the concerned Court. But that is not also the fact herein. As such, the first reason as has been assigned by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order according to our considered view cannot be said to be unjustified. 23. So far as the second reason for dismissal of the writ petition that the initial claim of the petitioner relates to the year 1976 and the initial cause of action for such claim arose as back as in the year 1989, and on the ground of delay the relief sought for was denied, which according to our considered view cannot be said to unjustified since the issue of junior/senior selection grade was considered by the committee and the same was rescinded the day when the 5th Pay Revision Recommendation has come into being. 24. 24. Further reference of one circular being Circular No. 660 dated 08.02.1999 is also required to be made wherein the concept of time bound promotion/junior/senior selection grade was rescinded by virtue of decision taken by the competent authority whereby and whereunder the benefit of time bound junior/senior selection grade has been rescinded after 31.12.1995 further, without making recovery thereof. The aforesaid circular clarifies that the benefit of junior/senior selection grade is not fit to be extended after closure of the said scheme that too if such prayer has been made after lapse of 30 years. 25. Therefore, the reason for not extending the benefit of junior/senior selection grade is hereby rejected on two fold grounds. First, that such prayer for the first time was agitated by filing writ petition in the year 2004 being W.P. (S) 6098 of 2004, which is after lapse of 28 years and as such there is delay and laches on the part of writ petitioner. 26. It is settle position of law that writ petition is not to be entertained if the Court of law has been approached after inordinate delay. 27. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in the case of New Delhi Municipal Council vs. Pan Singh and Others, (2007) 9 SCC 278 in particular paragraph 17, which is quoted as hereunder: “17. Although, there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. (See Lipton India Ltd. vs. Union of India).” 28. In State of M.P. and Others vs. Nandlal Jaiswal and Others, AIR 1987 SC 251 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that the power of the High Court to issue an appropriate writ under Article 226 of the Constitution is discretionary and if there is inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in filing the writ petition and such delay is not satisfactorily explained, the High Court may decline to interfere and grant relief in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. Emphasis was laid down on the principle of delay and laches stating that 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 inconvenience in bringing the justice. 29. Emphasis was laid down on the principle of delay and laches stating that 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 inconvenience in bringing the justice. 29. In this context, further reference is made to the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Baljeet Singh (Dead) through LRs. and Others vs. State of U.P. and Others, 2019 SCC Online SC 1004 [S.L.P. (C) Nos. 30404-30442/2017] wherein the land losers had approached the Court of law after inordinate delay seeking enhanced compensation which the Hon’ble Apex Court has refused to condone. In the aforesaid case, in Para-7, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held which reads as hereunder: “7. The matter requires examination from another aspect, viz. laches and delay. It is a very recognised principle of jurisprudence that a right not exercised for a long time is nonexistent. Even when there is no limitation period prescribed by any statute relating to certain proceedings, in such cases, courts have coined the doctrine of laches and delay as well as doctrine of acquiescence and non-suited the litigants who approached the court belatedly without any justifiable explanation for bringing the action after unreasonable delay. In those cases, where the period of limitation is prescribed within which the action is to be brought before the court, if the action is not brought within that prescribed period, the aggrieved party loses remedy and cannot enforce his legal right after the period of limitation is over, however, subject to the prayer for condonation of delay and if there is a justifiable explanation for bringing the action after the prescribed period of limitation is over and sufficient cause is shown, the court may condone the delay. Therefore, in a case where the period of limitation is prescribed and the action is not brought within the period of limitation and subsequently proceedings are initiated after the period of limitation along with the prayer for condonation of delay, in that case, the applicant has to make out a sufficient cause and justify the cause for delay with a proper explanation. It is not that in each and every case despite the sufficient cause is not shown and the delay is not properly explained, the court may condone the delay. It is not that in each and every case despite the sufficient cause is not shown and the delay is not properly explained, the court may condone the delay. To make out a case for condonation of delay, the applicant has to make out a sufficient cause/reason which prevented him in initiating the proceedings within the period of limitation. Otherwise, he will be accused of gross negligence. If the aggrieved party does not initiate the proceedings within the period of limitation without any sufficient cause, he can be denied the relief on the ground of unexplained laches and delay and on the presumption that such person has waived his right or acquiesced with the order. These principles are based on the principles relatable to sound public policy that if a person does not exercise his right for a long time then such right is non-existent.” 30. This Court after taking into consideration the facts in the entirety and discussions made herein above, is of the view that the finding so recorded and outcome to which the learned Single Judge has arrived at cannot be said to suffer from error. 31. Accordingly, the instant intra-court appeal fails and is dismissed.