JUDGMENT : Sanjay Kumar Medhi, J. Heard Shri A.I. Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Shri B. Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Health and Family Welfare Department, Assam. 2. The writ petition has been structured with the following prayers : “Under the premises aforesaid it is therefore prayed that your Lordship would be pleased to admit this Writ Petition, call for the records, issue rule calling upon the respondents to show cause as to why a writ in the nature of mandamus shall not be issued directing the respondents, to make payment of the arrear salary of the petitioners for the period from their respective date of appointment as shown in the table appended in paragraph: 4 up to 30-09-2010, forthwith without further delay, in compliance with the order dated 23-10-2017 passed by this Hon’ble court in Writ Petition No: 900 of 2013 and other connected writ petitions and/or as to why a further direction shall not be made to pay interest at the rate of 18% per annum with effect from 01-05-2018 to the date of making payment of arrear honorarium and/or as to why any other appropriate order(s) or direction(s) shall not be issued by this Hon'ble Court as may deem fit and proper and/or cause or causes being shown and on perusal of record and upon hearing the parties be please to make the rule absolute giving full and complete relief to the petitioners and/or pass such further or other order or orders direction or directions as your Lordship may deem fit and proper for the end of justice.” 3. It is contended that the petitioners were rendering their services as Female Attendants under a Family Welfare Scheme of the Union of India and had served in the said capacity during the period from 1986 to1999 wherein their honorarium were also enhanced. Since the enhanced honorarium were not paid, they had initially approached this Court by filing various writ petitions, the lead case being WP(C)/900/2013 which were disposed of vide order dated 23.10.2017 with a direction for payment of the honorarium within a period of 6 months. The petitioners, however, did not take any steps in spite of the directions not being complied with and ultimately, a contempt case was filed only in the year 2024, being Cont. Cas(C)/219/2024. The said case was, however, dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2024. The petitioners, however, did not take any steps in spite of the directions not being complied with and ultimately, a contempt case was filed only in the year 2024, being Cont. Cas(C)/219/2024. The said case was, however, dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.05.2024. The petitioners through their Association had thereafter filed WP(C)/3040/2024. However, the said writ petition was also withdrawn vide order dated 24.07.2024 passed in IA(C)/2190/2024 on the grounds that the individual members would like to file separate writ petitions. 4. Shri Uddin, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that it is a continuing cause of action and therefore, the aspect of delay will not come in. He has also submitted that a new ground has been taken in the petition pertaining to a claim for interest for the late payment. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that certain contempt petitions are pending before this Court. 5. Per contra, Shri Gogoi, learned Standing Counsel, Health Department has submitted that the delay from the initial order passed by this Court on 23.10.2017 is wholly unacceptable. It is submitted that even the contempt petition was instituted in the year 2024 which was closed on the ground of limitation and thereafter the present petition has been filed. It is submitted that a matter which has been adjudicated cannot be brought in for a fresh adjudication by the same parties. 6. The rival submissions have been duly considered and materials placed before this Court have also been carefully examined. 7. Before going to the issue, this Court reminds itself that the powers exercised by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is a power of equity and such exercise is made in extra-ordinary circumstances. A writ court is not an executing court. The rights of the petitioners were adjudicated which crystallized in the judgment and order dated 23.10.2017. If, according to the petitioners, there were any shortcomings in the compliance, the petitioners were open to approach this Court by filing contempt petition within the time prescribed. The said contempt petition was, however, filed after a long delay in the year 2024 which was accordingly closed on 08.05.2024 on the ground of limitation. 8. If, according to the petitioners, there were any shortcomings in the compliance, the petitioners were open to approach this Court by filing contempt petition within the time prescribed. The said contempt petition was, however, filed after a long delay in the year 2024 which was accordingly closed on 08.05.2024 on the ground of limitation. 8. On the aspect of there being a continuing cause of action, this Court is unable to accept the said submission as the relief prayed for apart from being the same relief which was there in the earlier rounds of litigation is also pertaining to the honorarium for a period which had culminated in the year 1999. The Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of M.P. Vs. Bhailal Bhai, reported in AIR 1964 SC 1006 has made the following observations : “21. ... Learned counsel is right in his submission that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Art 226. It appears to us however that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a Civil Court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Article 226 can be measured. The court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the court to hold that it is unreasonable …” 9. While the Limitation Act, per se may not have a strict application in a writ proceeding, the aspect of laches is an important factor which, this Court is required to look into. In any case, as observed above, a writ court cannot be made an executing court for execution of an order passed earlier as a litigant is not left remediless as he can take recourse to the Contempt of Courts Act with an allegation of willful and deliberate disobedience which, however, needs to be filed within the time prescribed. 10. In view of the above circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that this writ petition cannot be entertained and accordingly, the same may be dismissed.