1. Heard Mr. Y. Nirmolchand Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Th. Ibohal Singh, learned G.A. appearing on behalf of the respondent no.1 and Mr. Birendrakumar Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents 2 and 3. 2. By this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging the orders of the Secretary, Manipur Legislative Assembly dated 14.10.1990 terminating the service of the petitioner's father. Without entering into the merit of this case, this court is of the considered view that there is an inordinate delay in approaching this court by filing the present writ petition. It is fairly well settled law that the petitioner/ writ petitioners who had not approached the court within the reasonable time cannot be entitled to get the relief sought for, Ref Ashok @ Somanna Gowda & Anr. -vrs - State of Karnataka & Anr., 1992(1) SCC 28 . In this regard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioner had made representation after representation to the competent authority against the impinged termination order dated 14.6.1990.But in this regard it is also equally well settled in law that making representation after representation cannot be a satisfying explanation for the delay (Ref: State of Orissa - vrs - Payari M.:1997 (3) SCC 796). 3. For the reasons mentioned above, this writ petition is liable to be dismissed for the inordinate delay. Accordingly this writ petition is dismissed. However, dismissal of the writ petition will not bar the respondents 2 and 3 to consider the case of the petitioner's father's case who is still suffering from psychiatrist problem on humanitarian ground for payment of any financial benefits.