Order S.K. Singh, J. - Heard leaged counsel for the petitioner, State and the Union of India. 2. The petitioner, who is at present posted as Dy. Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna, had moved this Court for a direction to the respondent-Union of India to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of President Medal for gallantry. 3. According to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner who has appeared in person, in the year 1971 recommendation had been made by the District Magistrate, Patna and Senior Superintendent of Police, Patna for granting President medal for gallantry to the petitioner. However, the said recommendation had been forwarded by the State Government to the Union of India in the year 1978. Again in the year 1975 the petitioner's case was recommended for grant of President Medal for gallantry along with seven C.R.P.F. Officials who along with the petitioner had participated in a drive launched against the Naxalites in Bhojpur District. The said recommendation had been forwarded by the State Government to the Union of India in the year, 1980. 4. It would not be out of place to mention here that seven C.R.P.F. officials whose names had been recommended had been granted President Medal for gallantry as the concerned officials had recommended their case in time. 5. The Government of India which considered the recommendation of the State Government vide Annexure-3 rejected recommendation in favour of the petitioner in view of the fact that as eight years had already elapsed from the date of recommendation, as such President' Medal cannot be granted at such a belated stage. 6. The main question which arises for consideration is whether a person can be made to suffer for the latches which is not on his part? Admittedly, in the present case, as lapses of 8 years had occurred in view of the delayed recommendation made by the State of Bihar, the petitioner had no control over the same. 7. 6. The main question which arises for consideration is whether a person can be made to suffer for the latches which is not on his part? Admittedly, in the present case, as lapses of 8 years had occurred in view of the delayed recommendation made by the State of Bihar, the petitioner had no control over the same. 7. The Supreme Court considering the said matter in the case of Anand Prakash vs. Union of India and others arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 23437 of 1994, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court, had held that as the delay admittedly has been caused because of recommendation remaining pending for eight months in the office of the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Bhagalpur and seven months in the office of the Director General of Police, the appellant should not suffer because of that. In the said S.L.P., a very fair stand had been taken by the Union of India which had been quoted in the said judgment. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and directed that the recommendation made in favour of the petitioner be processed in accordance with law and be forwarded to the Union of India as early as possible. 8. The present case appears to be entirely covered by the said order, if not slightly on better footing as in the present case the petitioner's recommendation is not awaiting the clearance of the Government of Bihar rather the same had already been forwarded to the Union of India but had been rejected in view of the inordinate delay made by the State Government in recommending his case. 9. Though the petitioner has tried to explain delay which has occurded after rejection of his claim by the Union of India by stating that he had represented to the officials and even filed Memorial before the President of India on the direction of the Rashtrapati Bhawan had met the Chief Secretary of the Government of Bihar, however, to what extent, pendency of such representation can be sufficient cause for condoning the inordinate delay in filing the writ application has to be taken into consideration. Initially on the ground of delay alone, I was not very much inclined to pass any order but in view of the specific averment made in paragraph 4 of the supplementary affidavit to which, Annexure-9 has been enclosed which goes to show that in view of the recommendation made by the Member of Parliament regarding refusal of Medal to an official on the ground of delay for an occurrence of 26.1.79, the same had been reconsidered by the Union of India and as stated at the Bar, the President Medal had been awarded to him. 10. Equity which is in favour of the petitioner demands fair play. In the facts of the case, in view of the discussions made above, the order of Union of India as contained in Annexure-3 is quashed. I direct the Home Secretary, Ministry of Home. Union of India (respondent no. 1) to consider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with law and pass an appropriate order after examining the claim of the petitioner on its own merit. 11. The present writ application stands disposed of with the observations and directions as made above.