IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 267 of 2005 Reserved on: 26.12.2007 Decided on: 25.02.2008 Manorma Rathore and others … … Petitioner. Versus Union of India and others … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the husband of petitioner No.1 was enrolled in the army on 20.8.1955 and was discharged on 7.12.1964. It is specifically stated in para 4 of the petition that the case of the husband of the petitioner No.1 for invalid pension was rejected in the year 1964 or January, 1965. Naik Ludar Singh Rathore, it appears from the pleadings, did not take any steps for the redressal of his grievances till 2003. Sh. Ludar Singh Rathore was supplied the details of his service by the respondents since the discharge certificate could not be supplied to him. The cause of discharge mentioned in the service details is that Sh. Ludar Singh was discharged on medical grounds. Sh. Ludar 1 Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - Singh, original petitioner, died on June 20, 2005 and his legal heirs were brought on record vide order dated 25th August, 2005. Mr. Subhash Sharma, Advocate had strenuously argued that Sh. Ludar Singh, original petitioner, was entitled to get disability pension since he was discharged on medical grounds. Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General of India had strenuously argued that the record pertaining to Sh. Ludar Singh, original petitioner, was destroyed on 22nd October, 1990 after its prescribed retention period as per para 595 of the Regulation for the Army 1987 (Volume-II). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The original petitioner was enrolled in the Army on 20th August, 1955 and was discharged on 7th December, 1964. The case of the original petitioner for the grant of disability pension was rejected initially in the year 1964-65. Sh. Ludar Singh had requested for the supply of discharge certificate which was declined but the details of his service record were supplied to him vide Annexure P-1. He made a representation in the year 2003 seeking disability pension after a gap of 37 years. If the original petitioner was aggrieved in any manner after the rejection of his claim for the release of disability pension, he should have sought the redressal of his grievances at the earliest. He slept over the matter for about 4 decades and in the meantime the original record was destroyed by the duly constituted Board as per para 595 of the Regulation for the Army, 1987 (Volume-II). Proceedings of the Board which met on 22nd October, 1990 have been placed on record by the respondents. The name of the original petitioner Sh. Ludar Singh figures at Sr. No. 334. - 3 - The present petition suffers from delay and laches which has not been explained by the petitioners. Besides the delay and laches involved in this petition, the petitioner has not placed on record any material to substantiate that his case was covered under rule 173 of the Pension Regulations for the Army 1961 (Part-1). The respondents have also placed on record the amendment carried out in para 595 of the Regulation for the Army 1987 (Volume-II) whereby clause (f) has been inserted after clause (e) of para 595. The case of the petitioner does not fall under sub-clause (i) and (ii) of sub-para (e) and (f) of para 595. The service record of the original petitioner has been destroyed in accordance with law by the duly constituted Board on 22nd October, 1990 strictly in conformity with para 595 of the Regulation for the Army 1987 (Volume-II). In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. . (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. February 25, 2008 *Awasthi*