IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. (S/S) 377 of 2007 No. 671430328 Ex. Constable Anand Bahadur Pal …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents Present: Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate present for the petitioner. Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for the Union of India. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) 1. Heard Mr. Alok Mehra, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Standing Counsel for the Union of India. 2. The petitioner was a constable in Boarder Security Force and was enrolled in said Force on 25.12.1967. In the year 1971 petitioner was declared invalid and was boarded out from service. The case of the petitioner at the relevant time was considered and his application for invalid pension was rejected on the ground that medical condition of the petitioner was not attributed to the services, and that he had given false statement to the authorities that on 25.12.1971 he sustained injuries in battle. The concerned authority did not approve the application of the petitioner and on receipt of the medical board proceeding it was informed vide letter dated 18.1.1980 that the petitioner had given false statement before the board about the incident as stated above which never took place at the time of his invalidation. On 31.1.1973, the petitioner had completed only 5 years of service and hence he was not eligible for receiving invalid pension as per Rule-38 read with Rule-49 of CCS (Pension) Rules 1972, where the minimum of 10 years of service was required. 2 3. All the same, the petitioner has now filed a writ petition in the year 2007 challenging the order dated 30.3.2005 by which Additional DIG (ESTT) has rejected the application dated 7.1.2005 of the petitioner for the reason, which has already been stated above, that the petitioner is not eligible for invalid pension. Moreover, it is also rejected for reasons of delay. However, the petitioner has challenged the said order and made following prayers:- “A. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 30.3.2005 passed by the Respondent No.2 (Annexure No.5 to the writ petition). B. To issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to sanction invalid pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 31.1.1973 or in the alternative, to sanction disability pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 31.1.1973 along with arrears and all consequential benefits. C. To issue any other writ order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. D. Award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. 4. Respondents have filed their counter affidavit in which they have rejected the claim of the petitioner. Moreover, they have also stated that his application for invalid pension is highly belated. 5. This Court is of the view that the writ petition filed before this Court is highly belated and therefore liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches alone. Merely because an order has been passed on 30.3.2005 it would not purge the defect of the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. Moreover, by rejecting the claim of the petitioner even as late, the concerned authority has 3 stated that one of the grounds of rejecting the application of the petitioner is as it is highly belated i.e. the claim is belated. There are other grounds on merit as well. 6. Therefore the writ petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 7. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 23.11.2011 Kuldeep