Judgment Ravi S.Dhavan, J. 1. The petitioner-appellant Subodh Kumar Mishra @ Subodh Mishra joined the Army on 29 July, 1982 and while he was posted at the Mechanised Jnfantry Regiment at Ahmednagar, he took ill. He was adjudged as mentally disabled on account of depression as a consequence of alcoholism. He was discharged from the service w.e.f. 17 February, 1992 on medical grounds. The reason why he was discharged from the service was given to him. The petitioner-appellant applied for disability pension. This prayer was rejected by an order of the sanctioning authority, that is, Principal Comptroller of Defence Accounts (Pension) by an order of 18 November, 1992. 2. The petitioner-appellant had been put to a medical examination and his psychiatric examination reveals that depression was due to injury sustained in alcoholic intoxication. This fact is mentioned in the counter-affidavit in reply to the petition. The petitioner-appellant was also advised that should he be aggrieved by the order of 18 November, 1992 he may put up an appeal against the decision of the Principal Comptroller of Defence Accounts (Pension). But this should be within six months of the order dated 18 November, 1992. The petitioner-appellant could have filed the appeal but did not. Subsequently, when he filed an appeal after 2 years it was rejected. The petitioner-appellant was intimated of the rejection of the belated appeal. This letter is dated 31 August 1994. Nine years subsequently, the petitioner-appellant filed the writ petition before the High Court (CWJC No. 12838 of 2002). The writ petition of the petitioner-appellant suffers from as much laches as the appeal which he filed beyond limitation before the Army authorities. 3. The petitioner-appellant is claiming disability pension and would like to the Court to interfere. It is contended that the situation of his disability is directly related to his military service. The Court is afraid that it cannot lend such an interpretation. The petitioner-appellant had an opportunity to prefer an appeal against the order of the Principal Comptroller Defence Accounts (Pension), which remedy he did not avail within the period prescribed. Even before the High Court the petitioner-appellant comes after 9 years. 4. The Court does not find any error in the order of the learned Judge. 5. This appeal is dismissed.