entertain or not entertain a particular action under its writ jurisdiction, particularly having regard to the nature of dispute in the instant case, is fundamentally discretionary. The Court while exercising the writ jurisdiction has to take into consideration the entire conspectus of the case and the reasoning assigned for dismissing the writ petition is quite reasonable and logical. We may also state that while exercising our jurisdiction under the Letters Patent Appeal, the scope of interference is limited and since we perceive no infirmity or manifest illegality or patent error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge, we find no reason to interfere with their exercise of discretion in refusing to entertain the writ petition.” "We may further add that this is also a settled position in law that a writ jurisdiction cannot to be invoked for recovery of dues, particularly if the same are otherwise barred by limitation, and it is only a violation of a right which this Court can settle under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The appellant always has other efficacious remedies for recovery of her salary dues, if any. Therefore, while we decline to entertain the present appeal, we may only clarify that the appellant would be at liberty to avail her remedies under the civil proceedings for the recovery of dues, if any, with respect to the period which is not barred by limitation. There is no merit in the present appeal, hence dismissed."
