ORDER : ASHOK S.KINAGI, J. 1. The petitioner filed this writ petition seeking for the following reliefs: a) A writ in the nature of mandamus or order or direction directing the 4 th respondent to send the proposal to the 2 nd respondent through the 3 rd respondent to accord approval of the post of the petitioner with effect from the date of his appointment i.e., from 30.03.1990; b) A writ in the nature of mandamus or order or direction directing the 2 nd respondent, consequent to approval of post, to grant pensionery benefit to the petitioner with effect from 01.04.2012 with interest at the rate of 18% per annum. 2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this writ petition are as follows: 3. It is the case of the petitioner that he was appointed as a lecturer in the department of Painting in respondent No.5-College with the effect from 01.03.1990. He has served for more than 22 years in respondent No.5-College and he retired from service on 31.03.2012. After retirement, respondent No.4 did not pay the terminal benefits to the petitioner. During January 2016, it came to the knowledge of the petitioner that one K.S. Appajaiah, who is retired teaching staff of respondent No.5-College got pensionary benefits for the service from the Government through the Director, Department of Technical Education. 4. The petitioner has submitted a representation to the Director, Department of Technical Education stating that he was also a teaching staff of respondent No.5- College and similarly situated with the said person, and requested to pay the pensionary benefits. Respondent No.3 did not consider the representation. He also issued a legal notice to respondent No.4 calling upon him to furnish the information sought by the petitioner. Respondent no. 4 instead of complying the terms of legal notice, issued untenable reply. Hence, on these grounds, filed the writ petition seeking mandamus. 5. Respondent No.4 filed the statement of objections contending that the petitioner was appointed directly by respondent No.5- College and not by any department of the State Government. The petitioner is seeking for the pensionary benefits on parity of Sri. K.S.Appajaiah, who has been appointed by the State Government. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 7. The petitioner is seeking for the pensionary benefits on parity of Sri. K.S.Appajaiah, who has been appointed by the State Government. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the petition. 6. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 and learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has worked in respondent No.5 institution with effect from 01.03.1990 for more than 22 years. He retired from service on 31.03.2012. He submits that the similarly placed employee in the respondent No.5- college was granted all retirement benefits and the petitioner was not granted any retirement benefits. He submitted a representation to respondent No.4 to grant the retirement benefits. The respondents have refused to grant retirement benefits on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was not approved by the Government. He submits that one Appajaiah, who is the similarly placed employee in respondent No.5 - College was granted all retirement benefits. He submits that the petitioner is entitled for the similar benefits. Hence, on these grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the appointment of Appajaiah was approved by Government and she submits that the institution has not recommended for approval of appointment of the petitioner. Hence, the petitioner is not entitle for the retirement benefits and the Government has rightly rejected the representation submitted by the petitioner. She submits that the petitioner has not challenged the rejection and she also submits that the petitioner was retired from service in 2012 and the writ petition was filed in 2022 i.e., after one decade from the retirement. She submits that the petitioner has not shown any sufficient cause for filing the writ petition at the belated stage. There is an inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. She submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches. 9. To buttress her arguments, she has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Shivamma (D) by Lrs. vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others , Civil Appeal No.11794/2025 disposed of on 12.09.2025. Hence, on these grounds, she submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 10. vs. Karnataka Housing Board and others , Civil Appeal No.11794/2025 disposed of on 12.09.2025. Hence, on these grounds, she submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and latches and prays to dismiss the writ petition. 10. He submits that the petitioner approached this court in 2017 in W.P.No.26520 of 2017, wherein this court has directed the petitioner to submit a representation. He submits that the petitioner has not submitted a representation. However, he initiated a contempt proceedings in CCC No.73 of 2019, and it was disposed of on 22.07.2019, where, the learned counsel for respondent No.4 and 5 have adopted the arguments of the learned Additional Government Advocate. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent in the contempt proceeding submitted that the petitioner has not submitted any representation and he did not produce any acknowledgment in proof of earlier representation made and two weeks time was granted to the petitioner to file a separate representation by the learned single judge. The same was not done within time framed. Accordingly contempt proceedings were dropped. Even after dropping the contempt proceedings, the petitioner has not submitted a representation. He approached this Court in W.P.No.7455/2021. He has withdrawn the said writ petition with a liberty to approach the competent forum. After the disposal of the said writ petition, the petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure-U in June 2021. He submits that the appointment of the petitioner is not approved by the Government and the petitioner is not entitle for the pensionary benefits. Hence, on these grounds, prays to dismiss the writ petition. 12. Perused the records and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. 13. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a lecturer in respondent No.5- College. The petitioner has not produced any record to show that his appointment was approved by the State Government. Though he has retired from service on 31.03.2012, from 01.04.2012 he has not taken any steps against the respondents. He submitted a representation only in 2017 i.e., when the State Government has granted retirement benefits to Appajaiah, whose appointment was approved by the Government. 14. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was not approved by State Government. The petitioner approached this court in 2017 in W.P.No.26520 of 2017. He submitted a representation only in 2017 i.e., when the State Government has granted retirement benefits to Appajaiah, whose appointment was approved by the Government. 14. Admittedly, the appointment of the petitioner was not approved by State Government. The petitioner approached this court in 2017 in W.P.No.26520 of 2017. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 03.09.2018, wherein liberty was reserved to the petitioner to submit a representation within two weeks from the date of passing the order and directed the respondents shall dispose of the same within eight weeks. 15. The petitioner instead of submitting a representation, has filed a contempt petition in CCC No.73 of 2019. The Division Bench vide order dated 22.07.2019 dropped the proceedings on the ground that the liberty has reserved by the learned single Judge. The petitioner did not submit a representation. Thereafter, the petitioner once again approached this court in W.P.No.7455 of 2021. The said writ petition was withdrawn by the petitioner with a liberty to file an appropriate petition before the appropriate forum. 16. After the disposal of the said writ petition, the petitioner submitted a representation vide Annexure-U. The Government has refused to accept the representation on the ground that the appointment of the petitioner was not approved and is not entitled for pensionary retirement benefits and it is brought to the notice of this court that Appajaiah's appointment was approved by the Government and he was entitled for the retirement benefits accordingly, government has disbursed the said benefits. As the appointment of the petitioner was not approved, he is not entitled to the retirement benefits. 17. As observed above, the petitioner has not placed any material to show that his appointment was approved by the State and to issue writ of mandamus the petitioner must establish that he has a clear legal right that is being denied or violated. There must be a specific duty imposed by law on the respondents to perform the action. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Binny Ltd and another vs. V.Sadashivan and others , (2005) 6 SCC 657 held in para 17, which reads as follows: "17. This view was expressly stated by this Court in various decisions and one of the earliest decisions is Praga Tools Corpn. v. C.A. Imanual. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Binny Ltd and another vs. V.Sadashivan and others , (2005) 6 SCC 657 held in para 17, which reads as follows: "17. This view was expressly stated by this Court in various decisions and one of the earliest decisions is Praga Tools Corpn. v. C.A. Imanual. In this case, the appellant Company was a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act and at the material time the Union Government and the Government of Andhra Pradesh held 56 per cent and 32 per cent of its shares respectively. The respondent workmen filed a writ petition under Article 226 in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh challenging the validity of an agreement entered into between the employees and the Company, seeking a writ of mandamus or an order or direction restraining the appellant from implementing the said agreement. The appellant raised an objection as to the maintainability of the writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition. The Division Bench held that the petition was not maintainable against the Company. However, it granted a declaration in favour of three workmen, the validity of which was challenged before this Court. This Court held at SCC pp. 589-90, paras 6-7 as under: "... that the applicant for a mandamus should have a legal and specific right to enforce the performance of those duties. Therefore, the condition precedent for the issue of mandamus is that there is in one claiming it a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by one against whom it is sought. An order of mandamus is, in form, a command directed to a person, corporation or an inferior tribunal requiring him or them to do a particular thing therein specified which appertains to his or their office and is in the nature of a public duty. It is, however, not necessary that the person or the authority on whom the statutory duty is imposed need be a public official or an official body. A mandamus can issue, for instance, to an official of a society to compel him to carry out the terms of the statute under or by which the society is constituted or governed and also to companies or corporations to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorising their undertakings. A mandamus can issue, for instance, to an official of a society to compel him to carry out the terms of the statute under or by which the society is constituted or governed and also to companies or corporations to carry out duties placed on them by the statutes authorising their undertakings. A mandamus would also lie against a company constituted by a statute for the purposes of fulfilling public responsibilities [cf.Halsbury's Laws of England (3 rd Edn)., Vol II, P.52 and onwards] The company being a non-statutory body and one incorporated under the Companies Act there was neither a statutory not a public duty imposed on it by a statute in respect of which enforcement could be sought by means of a mandamus, nor was there in its workmen any corresponding legal right for enforcement of any such statutory or public duty. The High Court, therefore, was right in holding that no writ petition for a mandamus or an order in the nature of mandamus could lie against the company." 18. Admittedly, in the instant case, the petitioner has not established that he is having a legal right seeking approval after retirement i.e., after lapse of 5 years from the date of retirement. Thus, as rightly pointed out by the learned Additional Government Advocate that the writ petition filed by the petitioner is after 5 years from the retirement and there is an inordinate delay in approaching this Court i.e., in 2017. Hence, I do not find any grounds to entertain the writ petition. 19. Accordingly, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER The writ petition is dismissed In view of dismissal of the writ petition, pending I.As, if any, do not survive for consideration and they are disposed of accordingly.