IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5582 of 2008 YADUNANDAN PRASAD, son of Late Basudeo Prasad, resident of Village Jogiya, P.O. Chandi, District Nalanda. ---PETITIONER Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA through Defence Secretary, AHQ (VB), New Delhi. 2. The Defence Secretary, AHQ (VB), New Delhi. 3. CDA, Allahabad. 4. The Chief of Air Staff, Air HQ VB, New Delhi. 5. Air-Officer-Commanding AFRO, Subrota Park, New Delhi. 6. The Branch Manager, Punjab National Bank, Chandi, District Nalanda. ---RESPONDENTS ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr Harendra Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Union of India : Mr Ambuj Nayan Chaubey, C.G.C. For the B a n k : Mr Rakesh Kumar Ranjan, Advocate ------------ 2. 23.11.2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent-Union of India as also the Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is aggrieved by the communication dated 31st of July, 2000, as contained in Annexure 4, whereby he was informed that no disability element of pension is admissible to him with effect from 24th of April, 1990 for life as the disability was re-assessed at less than 20% and as such, no fresh financial benefit is admissible to him under the existing regulation. The petitioner represented the matter, which was replied by the authority as per the letter dated 16th of August, 2001, in which the decision, as contained in the previous letter, was reiterated. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner could not assail those above decisions as they were not made available to him at the appropriate time. 2 On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Union of India submits that the present writ application deserves to be dismissed as the issue has become stale. The petitioner was subjected to re-survey Medical Board on 24th of April, 1990. Learned counsel further submitted that the re-assessment Medical Board was held on 6th of December, 1989 where the disability of the petitioner was assessed at less than 20% with effect from 24th of April, 1990. The above decisions were communicated to the petitioner as would be appearing from perusal of the letter contained in Annexure 4 series as also Annexure 6. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was discharged about 25 years back. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ application; both on the ground of delay as also on merits since the Medical Board has examined the petitioner on 6th of December, 2009 and upon examination, the disability of the petitioner was assessed at less than 20% and as such found that the petitioner is not entitled to the disability element of disability pension. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)