IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR MONDAY, THE 19TH JANUARY 2009 / 29TH POUSHA 1930 WP(C).No. 1871 of 2009(W) ------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- G.PARAMESWARAN PILLAI VANDEMADARAM HOUSE, CHANGANKULANGARA, OACHIRA PO, KOLLAM DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.SHAJI THOMAS PORKKATTIL SRI.BINU PAUL SRI.T.V.VINU RESPONDENT(S): --------------- 1. SECRETARY,MINISTRY OF DEFENCE, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI. 2. CONTROLLER OF DEFENCE ACCOUNTS (PENSION) ALLAHABAD. 3. RECORDS OFFICER FOR OIC EME RECORDS, SECUNDERABAD-21. BY SHRI K.M. JAMALUDHEEN, CGSC THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 19/01/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: T.R. Ramachandran Nair, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - W.P.(C) No. 1871 of 2009-W - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 19th day of January, 2009. JUDGMENT The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on 3.6.1963 and was working as a Vehicle Mechanic. He was discharged from service on 23.8.1977. His physical disability assessed was at 20% attributable to military service. Disability pension was sanctioned accordingly. The respondents, by Ext.P6 letter dated 18.3.1987 informed him that as he is not entitled for grant of disability pension under the existing rules, he has no right to claim the pension. This writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P6. 2. Heard learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel also. 3. There is a long delay of nearly 22 years in filing the writ petition. The only explanation stated in para 5 of the writ petition is that he is not a well educated man and he did not get any legal help to redress his grievances when he received Ext.P6 communication. This is not a sufficient explanation for the delay. Since he has suffered the order issued way back in 1987, it cannot be said that the delay has been properly explained also. WPC 1871/2009 2 He had not filed any appeal also at that point of time. Therefore, I do not see any ground to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. (T.R. Ramachandran Nair, Judge.) kav/