J.M. Srivastava, J.— The petitioner was appointed Sub-Deputy Collector in Assam Civil Service Class-II in the year 19 U and was promoted in the year 1952 to the post of Extra Assistant Commissioner, (EAC for short) in Assam Civil Service Class-I Junior Grade. In the year 1959, the petitioner held the post of Senior EAC. Jorhat, and passed the departmental examination in the same year. The petitioner was, however, superseded and graded down in the Assam Civil Service and was ranked below one Sri A.K. Choudhury, who earlier till 7.11.59 had been below the petitioner in the civil list. The petitioner submitted representations to the Government against his supersession by Sri A.K. Choudhury, but without result. The petitioner was promoted to the Senior Grade of Assam Civil Service Class I, in the year 1960. In the year 1964, select list for promotion to the Indian Administrative Service was prepared wherein the petitioner's name was included, but no one was promoted to the IAS from the said list. The petitioner's name was also included in the select list for promotion to the IAS in the year 1965. The petitioner's name was not included in the select list for promotion to the IAS in the year 1966. The petitioner submitted repre­sentations Annexures 2,3,5 and 6 to which he received replies Annexures 7, 8,9, 12,13 and 14. The petitioner kept on making representations, and also received replies Annexures 16,17 and 18, whereby the govern­ment regretted that nothing could be done in the matter. The petitioner retired as ADM, Gauhati in October, 1968. The petitioner submitted further representation in the year 1978. The petitioner preferred an appeal to the Assam Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal held that the matter was barred by limitation and the appeal was dismissed on 27.2.80. By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner claims the financial benefit which he would have received had he not been superseded and given promotion when due. 2. We have heard Sri D.N.Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri C. Choudhury, learned Government Advocate for the respondent, considered the submissions and the materials on record. 3. The petitioner's basic grievance related to his supersession by Sri A.K. Choudhury as early as in 1959, which resulted inconsequential grievances relating to service matters like further promotions in the ACS and subsequently to the IAS. 3. The petitioner's basic grievance related to his supersession by Sri A.K. Choudhury as early as in 1959, which resulted inconsequential grievances relating to service matters like further promotions in the ACS and subsequently to the IAS. While promotion to the ACS was delayed as a consequence of the supersession, the promotion to the IAS did not, eventually materialise. 4. Sri D.N. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner had duly passed the departmental promotion examination and as such his seniority (which earlier had been taken away by Sri A.K. Choudhury) should have been restored and since restoration of his seniority had not been made, it had resulted in the subsequent deprivations or denial of promotion, and hence the petitioner should be given adequate relief. 5. We have on careful anxious consideration, not found it reasonably practicable to take the view that any such relief as has been prayed for, can be allowed to the petitioner, mainly because too long a period has elapsed after the basic grievance had arisen and before the petitioner came to this Court. The petitioner had even retired from service in October, 1965, and it was only about 13 years after his retirement that he filed the present petition. Sri Baruab, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that the petitioner had kept on making repre­sentation but without any success and as such the delay that occurred should net prevent the Court from giving the petitioner appropriate relief. We are unable to accept the submission. While the petitioner was justified in making the earlier representations we cannot find any justifica­tion for his having kept on pursuing the matter only by representations and not having sought proper remedy in due time. In our opinion, on account of inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner, it shall not be reasonable to consider the grievance now. It is well settled principle that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised where a person has not approached the Court for proper relief in due time 6. In our opinion, on account of inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner, it shall not be reasonable to consider the grievance now. It is well settled principle that the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not be exercised where a person has not approached the Court for proper relief in due time 6. Sri D. N. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner has cited Sushil Kumar Yadunath Jha vs. Union of India & another, (1986) 3 SCC 325 , where the Court held that on peculiar facts of the case the High Court had erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of laches. In Snshil Kumar (supra), the services of the petitioner who was a teacher in the Central School, after he had worked for about 3 years, had been terminated on February 29, 1968. However, he was given fresh appoint­ment from June 24, 1968. The petitioner kept on making representations for condonation of the aforesaid break in service, but the same was turned down. The petitioner eventually after commendable service filed a petition and the Court in the circumstances of the case had held that the delay in such circumstances could not be a ground for refusal or relief under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For obvious reasons the facts of the present case stated earlier are entirely different and the ratio laid down in Sushil Kumar (supra) is hardly attracted. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, this petition fails and is dismissed. We however, leaves the parties to bear their own costs.