JUDGMENT 1. - Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for grant of disability pension for the service which the deceased Mangania Ram rendered from 6th July, 1933 to 28th February, 1946. 2. The facts which have come on record are that the original petitioner, Mangania Ram rendered defence service from 6th July, 1933 to 28th February, 1946 and in second world war during the period from 19th February, 1941 to 22nd November, 1944, he sustained injury on his shoulder on 2nd February, 1942 and, because of injury sustained by him, he was discharged from service after rendered 12 yrs. and 232 days of service, which is evident from discharge certificate Ann.1 placed by the petitioner on record. 3. The petitioner was paid his pension throughout, but it was paid on service element rendered by him. After accepting pension for 45 years, legal notice was served by the petitioner on the pretext that while computing pension, disability element has not been noticed and he is entitled for higher rate of pension taking note of disability which is sustained during service. 4. The respondents sent their reply to the notice and rejected his claim on the premise that there is a gross delay and the record of his medical treatment is not traceable and more fact of being shown that he sustained injury will not be sufficient to grant him benefit of disability pension. 5. During the pendency of writ petition, Mangania Ram who is the petitioner died on 14th December, 2003 and his son has been impleaded as legal heir on record. 6. Shri Payare lal, counsel for petitioner contends that the deceased petitioner was discharged from service because of disability and under Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations those who are discharged on medical grounds, they are entitled for payment of pension taking note of service element and disability element as well. In such circumstances, throughout he was paid less pension than what he was entitled for. In such circumstances, his valuable right has been seriously jeopardised in not making proper computation towards pension to which he was otherwise entitled for. 7. In such circumstances, throughout he was paid less pension than what he was entitled for. In such circumstances, his valuable right has been seriously jeopardised in not making proper computation towards pension to which he was otherwise entitled for. 7. Respondents have filed reply to the writ petition where it has been averred that he has raised objection after delay of almost 45 years and so far as the record with respect to medical ailment is not traceable and has been destroyed by lapse of time and mere fact that he sustained, injury which is evident from discharge certificate, will not ipso facto made him entitled for grant of disability element in computing his pension as it does not disclose that he sustained disability of 20% or more which make him entitled for grant of computation of disability element while computing pension. 8. I have considered the submissions made by the parties and with i their assistance perused the material available on record. 9. It is true that pension is not a bounty, it is a legal right of the incumbent/retired personnel to get as a matter of right under the rules. It is not disputed by the petitioner that pension was not paid to him during his life time, but only dispute raised was of not taking note of disability element while computing pension. The discharge certificate, which has been placed on record, only discloses about the injury sustained by the deceased on 2nd February, 1942, but it is nowhere mentioned about the percentage of disability, which was assessed by the Medical Board to make him entitled for grant of disability element. There is no other record available which at all can connect with the argument advanced by counsel to show that the disability was 20% or more. In the absence of which, no adverse inference can be drawn in the matter. Apart from it, after such a long delay of 45 years and when recipient himself is no more, in totality of facts and circumstances, in my opinion, no case for interference in the present case is made out. Consequently, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.Writ petition dismissed. *******