Order The petitioner has approached this Court for issuance of writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding upon respondent no. 1 to forthwith reinstate the petitioner in the post of Sepoy who had been terminated on the ground of producing forged caste certificate at the time of appointment. 2. He has filed a writ petition on the ground that criminal case was initiated against the similarly situated persons who have been acquitted by the competent Court of jurisdiction vide judgment dated 14th February, 2008. 3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner was appointed as Sepoy on 15.04.1982 under the Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd. and on the said post he was confirmed on 16.10.1982. 4. It has been submitted that on the ground of submission of forged caste certificate at the time of joining of the petitioner, a memorandum of charge was issued to him for commission of forgery dated 31.01.1985, in terms thereof he had submitted due reply on 22.02.1985. Thereafter, finally the order of dismissal from service was passed against the petitioner on 14.12.1991 against which the petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected vide order dated 27.02.1992. subsequently, he preferred a memorial before the Chairman, Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., which was also rejected vide order dated 05.12.1992. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred writ application before the Hon’ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi being C.W.J.C. no. 3929/1992(R ) which was disposed of vide order dated 07.09.1993 with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner sympathetically. In terms thereof, the petitioner had made representation before the competent authority but since no action was taken in the said representation, it compelled the petitioner to prefer another writ petition before the Hon’ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi being C.W.J.C. no. 985/1995(R), which was disposed of vide order dated 07.02.1996, giving liberty to the petitioner to file another representation directing the respondents authority to consider the same and take decision within a period of two months. But the respondents authority have not passed any order, the petitioner again approached the Hon’ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi being C.W.J.C. no. 3478/1997(R ) but it was dismissed as being without merit vide order dated 16.04.1999. The petitioner again preferred an appeal being L.P.A. no. 150/1999(R) which was also dismissed vides order dated 02.08.1999. But the respondents authority have not passed any order, the petitioner again approached the Hon’ble Patna High Court, Ranchi Bench, Ranchi being C.W.J.C. no. 3478/1997(R ) but it was dismissed as being without merit vide order dated 16.04.1999. The petitioner again preferred an appeal being L.P.A. no. 150/1999(R) which was also dismissed vides order dated 02.08.1999. Again he moved before this Hon’ble Court vide W.P.(S) no. 67 of 2006 which was also dismissed on 07.08.2006 and thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal being L.P.A. no. 482 of 2006 which was also dismissed on 29.08.2007. 5. The grievance of the petitioner was that F.I.R. was not lodged against the petitioner but F.I.R. was lodged against the similarly situated co-employees. Employees against whom the F.I.R. was instituted, the criminal case has ultimately resulted in acquittal of those employees and has been remained to continue in service. After acquittal of those employees from the criminal cases, the petitioner has filed writ petition for consideration of his case so that he may be reinstated in service like that of the other similarly situated co-employees who are discharging their duties. 6. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., has submitted that petitioner has approached this Court at belated stage since the petitioner has been terminated from service in the year 1991 and thereafter he has preferred writs before this Hon’ble Court since 1991 onwards, accordingly on the ground of acquittal order passed with respect to the co-employees, the petitioner cannot derive any benefit. It has been submitted that in belated claim, the extra ordinary jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot be exercised. 7. Heard the parties. 8. The petitioner admittedly was terminated by the respondent authority in the year 1991, the memorial has been passed in the year 1992 confirming the dismissal of the petitioner and thereafter a series of litigations have been preferred by the petitioner against the respondent like Life Insurance Corporation of India Ltd., for redressal of his grievance. 9. Admittedly, petitioner was dismissed from service in the year 1991 and since then it is almost 23 years. It is a trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the Court after a long time. Apex Court in case of New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. 9. Admittedly, petitioner was dismissed from service in the year 1991 and since then it is almost 23 years. It is a trite that the discretionary jurisdiction may not be exercised in favour of those who approach the Court after a long time. Apex Court in case of New Delhi Municipal Council Vs. Pan Singh and Others, (2007) 9 SCC 278 held that writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time. At para 17 the Hon’ble Apex Court held that- “17. Although, there is no period of limitation provided for filing a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, ordinarily, writ petition should be filed within a reasonable time.” 10. Same proposition of law was reiterated by Apex Court in Shiv Dass Vs. Union of India and Others, (2007) 9 SCC 274 , wherein Apex Court held that in case of belated approach writ petition has to be dismissed. Para 6 of the said case is quoted herein below- “6. Normally, in the case of belated approach writ petition has to be dismissed. Delay or laches is one of the factors to be borne in mind by the High Courts when they exercise their discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In an appropriate case the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if there is such negligence or omission on the part of the applicant to assert his right as taken in conjunction with the lapse of time and other circumstances, causes prejudice to the opposite party. Even where fundamental right is involved the matter is still within the discretion of the Court as pointed out in Durga Prashad v. Chief Controller of Imports and Exports. Of course, the discretion has to be exercised judicially and reasonably.” 11. In my view, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. Hence it is hereby dismissed.