IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4661 of 2010 SUDARSHAN SINGH, EX ND (TS) ARMY NO. 1476275L, SON OF RAMEKBAL SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE- GHANGHAR, P.O. SINHA GHAT, P.S. KRISHNAGARH, DISTRICT- BHOJPUR (BIHAR). Versus 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE DEFENCE SECRETARY, NEW DELHI. 2. THE CHIEF OF THE ARMY STAFF, ARMY H.Q. DEFENCE H.Q., NEW DELHI 3. THE OFFICER INCHARGE, P.C.D.A. (P) ALLAHABAD (U.P.) 4. THE SENIOR RECORD OFFICER, ABHILEKH BE3NGAL ABHIYANTA SAMOOH BENGAL ENGINEER GROUP RECORDS, ROORKEE (U.P.) 5. THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTORATE GENERAL PERS SERVICES ADJUTANT GENERAL’S BRANCH-4 9 (d) ARMY H.Q., DEFENCE H.Q. NEW DELHI. 2 18.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Raghib Ahsan, Assistant Solicitor General appearing for the respondent-Union of India. The grievance of the petitioner is the claim of the petitioner for payment of the disability pension has been rejected by the respondent-authority as per the letter no. Pen/S-2989/FRI/R dated 26th September, 2002 (Annexure-2). Thereafter the petitioner preferred an appeal which was rejected as per the letter communicated to the petitioner as per the letter no. Pen/D- 1476275/R dated 10th February, 2009 (Annexure-4) whereby the claim of the petitioner was found not admissible, however, since the petitioner had preferred an appeal after a good delay, and as such, the same was also found to be time barred. Mr. Raghib Ahsan, learned counsel appearing for the Union of India submits that the petitioner has filed - 2 - the writ application before this Court without exhausting the statutory further appeal before the Defence Minister’s Appellate Committee besides the Armed Forces Tribunal at Kolkata. Learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to refute the above submissions, however, he submits that in similar circumstances benefits were granted to other employees and since the cause of action has accrued in the year 2002, and as such, he could not place his grievances before the Armed Forces Tribunal as submitted by the counsel for the Union of India. In this view of the matter, this writ application is found not maintainable and the same is accordingly dismissed. Manish/- ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)