IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1360 of 2007 (S/S) Badri Singh S/o Late Shri Ratan Singh R/o Village Bahikot District Pithoragarh. ….....Petitioner. Versus 1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence New Delhi. 2. Directorate General Assam Rifles, Shilong-793011. 3. Commandant, 15 Assam Rifles C/o 99 APO. ……….Respondents. Shri Gopal Datt Joshi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Vikas Pande, learned Central Govt. Counsel for the respondents. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to pay invalidity pension along with arrears since 15.07.1965, admissible as per rules. He has further sought quashing of letter dated 10.11.2006, issued by respondent No. 2. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was recruited in 15 Assam Rifles of Indian Army on 26.09.1960. It has been pleaded in the writ petition that due to adverse climatic conditions and hazardous mountainous terrains of the posting, the petitioner developed varicose veins 2 on both legs. The petitioner got invalidated and discharged from service after his continuous government service from 26.09.1960 to 15.07.1965. It is further stated that he made a request in the year 1967 for invalidity pension but to no avail. 4. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner in the year 2007 i.e. after a period of more than 40 years, seeking direction of mandamus commanding respondents to pay the invalidity pension. A counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents shows that under Article 481 of Central Service Regulations (Pension) 1964, only Brief Sheets of destroyed service records, is on the record. 5. The writ petition suffers from latches and unexplained long delay of more than 40 years. 6. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought by the petitioner at such a highly belated stage, after a period of more than 40 years particularly when record has already been weeded out. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. 27.08.2008 Sweta 3 4