ORDER :

1. The order dated January 28, 2022 passed by learned Single Judge has been impugned by filing present intra-Court appeal.

2. The claim made before the learned Single Judge was that the appellant has not been paid salary for the period from July 1, 2015 to September 25, 2015. He retired from service on attaining the age of superannuation on March 31, 2016. The writ petition was dismissed on account of delay and laches and also noticing the fact that for the period from July 1, 2015 to September 25, 2015, petitioner, in fact, had not worked, hence was not entitled to any payment of salary.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that there was no delay in filing the writ petition as the appellant had been pursuing his remedy before the department and further that he handed over the matter to Mr. Sunil Kumar Bajpai, Advocate, but he did not file the writ petition.

4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find that any case is made out for interference in the present appeal. Law on the principles of delay and laches is well settled. It is a case in which salary for the period from July 1, 2015 to September 25, 2015 has been sought by filing a petition in the year 2022, i.e., more than six years thereafter. The appellant had attained the age of superannuation on March 31, 2016. Thereafter relationship of master and servant ceased and no issue with regard to any service dispute could have been raised more than six years after the retirement. Even repeated representations filed by an employee will not take care of the period of limitation or the principle of delay and laches on which the writ petition filed in this Court has to be examined.

5. Different facets of issue regarding delay and laches in filing the petition had been subject matter of consideration before Hon'ble the Supreme Court on number of occasions, wherein it has been consistently opined that the party can be denied relief if he sleeps over the matter.

6. In State of Uttaranchal and another v. Sri Shiv Charan Singh Bhandari and others 2013 (6) SLR 629, Hon'ble the Supreme Court, while considering the issue regarding delay and laches and referring to earlier judgments on the issue, opined that repeated representations made will not keep the issues alive. A stale or a dead issue/dispute cannot be got revived even if such a representation has either been decided by the authority or got decided by getting a direction from the court as the issue regarding delay and laches is to be decided with reference to original cause of action and not with reference to any such order passed. Delay and laches on the part of a government servant may even deprive him of the benefit which had been given to others. Article 14 of the Constitution of India, in a situation of that nature, will not be attracted as it is well known that law leans in favour of those who are alert and vigilant. Even equality has to be claimed at the right juncture and not on expiry of reasonable time. Even if there is no period prescribed for filing the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, yet it should be filed within a reasonable time. Such an order promoting a junior should normally be challenged within a period of six months or at the most in a year of such promotion. Though it is not a strict rule, the courts can always interfere even subsequent thereto, but relief to a person, who allows things to happen and then approach the court and puts forward a stale claim and try to unsettle settled matters, can certainly be refused relief on account of delay and laches. Anyone who sleeps over his rights is bound to suffer. An employee who sleeps like Rip Van Winkle and got up from slumber at his own leisure, deserves to be denied the relief on account of delay and laches. Relevant paragraphs from the aforesaid judgment are extracted below :-

"13. We have no trace of doubt that the respondents could have challenged the ad hoc promotion conferred on the junior