IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14455 of 2005 GURUDAYAL SINGH Versus THE BIHAR STATE KHADI & VILLAG ----------- 3 28.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. It is not disputed that the petitioner retired from service of the Khadi Board on 31.12.1995. It is also not disputed that the petitioner approached the High Court by filing the present writ application on 24.11.2005 almost 10 years after his retirement. His claim in the writ application is that his juniors were granted higher pay scale when he was in service, but he did not get the same. The reason for filing the writ application after 10 years of superannuation is that he has been filing representation and following it up with the authorities. This was a good reason for the petitioner to explain the delay. It may be a good ground or reason for filing the writ petition after 10 years for the petitioner but it may not be good enough to adjudicate such belated claims by the Court. Entertaining stale and belated claims is against public policy. Petitioner can continue filing representation but this Court shall neither pass any direction nor entertain the present writ application on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner. The writ application is dismissed. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)