HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 44 of 2004 (S/S) Ex. Sailor No. 61308 Pratap Singh …. Petitioner Versus Union of India & others …. Respondents Sri Mangal Singh Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for the Union of India. 15th September, 2009 Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. Learned counsel for the petitioner filed a Rejoinder Affidavit to the Counter Affidavit filed by the Union of India which is taken on record. Heard learned counsels for the parties. As per the averments in the writ petition, the petitioner was recruited in the Indian Navy on 15th June, 1949 as an ordinary Seaman and continued in service up to 5th October, 1953. The petitioner faced a Medical Board on 5th October, 1953 and was diagnosed as suffering from a disease known as “Hyper Chlorydric Dyspepsia”. According to the opinion of the Medical Board the disease of the petitioner was attributable to the service condition though the petitioner was not fit to serve any further in the Indian Navy. Hence, he was boarded out from the Indian Navy and since his disability was assessed up to 40 per cent, disability pension was also given to him. The petitioner continued to get this disability pension from 1953 to 1961. However, on 13.10.1961, the petitioner faced another Medical Board (the Medical Board which the petitioner had to face after a periodic interval) and this Medical Board assessed the disability of the petitioner as less than 20 per cent and since the disability was less than 20 per cent, it was held that the petitioner is no longer eligible for grant of disability pension under the law as a disability pension cannot be granted to anyone with less than 20 per cent disability hence the disability pension was discontinued. According to the respondents, the information was given to the petitioner on 8th May, 1962 that he was now disentitled 2 for the disability pension w.e.f. 27th October, 1961. It appears that the petitioner thereafter continued to agitate his case before the authorities and in the year 1971 after a gap of 10 years the petitioner was again examined by a Medical Board which again assessed the disability of the petitioner as less than 20 per cent. This decision of the Medical Board was also communicated to the petitioner vide letter dated 29th May, 1972. The petitioner did not file any statutory appeal against this order of the Medical Board or even against the earlier order of the Medical Board dated 13th October, 1961. The petitioner, however, continued to re-agitate the issue with the authorities and thereafter a Medical Board was again constituted which examined the petitioner on 28/29-6-1993 and according to the opinion of this Medical Board as well the disability of the petitioner was assessed as less than 20 per cent. The matter of the petitioner was also rejected on 16th December, 1997 by the pensioning authority which is known of Principal Controller of Defence Accounts (PCDA). Against this order an appeal was filed by the petitioner which was also rejected on 1st September, 1998. The petitioner has now filed the writ petition in the year 2004. Apparently there has been a gross negligence, inordinate delay and latches on the part of the petitioner in coming before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Moreover the petitioner has not made any averment in the writ petition explaining the delay in filing of the present writ petition. The fact that this matter has been examined by the medical authorities and appeal filed against the order of the medical authorities has also been rejected is of much relevance and there are the experts in their field. No arbitrariness or mala fide has been alleged or elaborated, except bald allegations. The matter is very old as it pertains to the year 1961 and has been challenged in the writ petition in the year 2004, so there is apparently a delay of 43 years. Even if it is assumed 3 for the sake of argument that the appeal by the petitioner was filed in the year 1971 and there is an order of year 1998 yet there is no whisper regarding filing of the writ petition so late in the year 2004, nor is there any explanation of this inordinate delay. Hence, without going into the merit of the matter, writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches and is accordingly dismissed. It is clarified that this writ petition has been dismissed simply on the ground of latches and any reference to details may not be construed as having been rejected on merits. Under the circumstances, no order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 15.9.2009 Avneet