IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.390 of 2011 Tilak Rai Versus The Managing Director,B.S.Co-O ----------- 2 12-07-2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-bank. We entirely agree with the writ court that the cause of action arose immediately after 11-7-1977 when the appellant/writ petitioner submitted his joining letter with medical certificate after remaining absent since 5-12-1973. Instead of seeking his right as a peon under respondent-bank so that he could be given the relief of joining his post and earning his wages, he kept mum merely by filing representation till 1989 and after he crossed the usual age of superannuation on 31-12-2005, he filed a writ petition in the year 2008 only for retiral benefits . That writ petition is said to be pending but we could not be shown any order passed in that writ petition which may help the appellant. He allegedly came to know in course of hearing of that writ petition that his application for joining filed in 1977 had been rejected in 1989. On that basis appellant sought to wriggle out of unusual delay and laches. The writ court held that the delay 2 on the part of the appellant must be reckoned from the year 1977 because he never sought enforcement of his right to join the post of peon at that time or soon thereafter. In our considered view, the discretionary power under writ jurisdiction has rightly not been exercised by the learned single Judge in favour of the appellant. We find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. However, we make it clear that since the writ petition has been dismissed in limine on the ground of delay and laches, it would not be treated as res judicata if the appellant has any other forum to raise his grievance. Naresh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) ( Shivaji Pandey, J)