Judgment 1. Heard both sides. 2. The petitioner before this Court was serving in Army. He was discharged on medical ground having been placed in category BEE(P) under order dated 30.9.1999 (Annexure-1). The claim of the petitioner before this Court is for grant of disability pension as also medical benefit of Army Group Insurance (A.G.I.) w.e.f. the date of discharge i.e. 1.10.1999. 3. A counter affidavit has been filed and placed on record. 4. The petitioner was enrolled in Army sometimes in the year 1994 and subsequently, he was discharged w.e.f. 30.9.1999 on medical grounds by an order contained in Annexure-1. It appears that the petitioner thereafter laid a claim for grant of disability pension before the authorities of the respondent-Union. The same was duly considered by the respondents and the claim of the petitioner for grant of disability pension was rejected and the decision was communicated to the petitioner by a communication dated 13th Juiy, 2000 (Annexure-2). From perusal of the said order, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, it prima facie appears that the petitioner while being apprised of his rejection order was also given an option to prefer an appeal to the Government of India against this rejection of disability pension claim within six months (from 22.6.2000). This shall be evident from bare perusal of clause 3 of Annexure-2. There is no statement in the writ petition that the petitioner availed this forum by filing any appeal. In fact the petitioner has not dealt with on that aspect of the matter In the entire writ petition. About five years later, this writ petition has been filed with the aforesaid grievance/claim. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the contrary, submits with reference to the statement made in several paragraphs of the counter affidavit that the petitioner was placed in medical category BEE(P) for the disease Border Line Hansens Disease 030(B) which was assessed less than 20%. It has further been stated that the discharge of the petitioner from Army service was not solely on medical grounds. The respondents have further stated that the claim of the petitioner for grant of disability pension was considered thread bare by the authorities and the same was rejected and communicated to the petitioner in July, 2000 giving liberty to prefer an appeal against the decision of the respondent within six months from 22nd June, 2000. The respondents have further stated that the claim of the petitioner for grant of disability pension was considered thread bare by the authorities and the same was rejected and communicated to the petitioner in July, 2000 giving liberty to prefer an appeal against the decision of the respondent within six months from 22nd June, 2000. The respondents have further stated that the petitioner has failed to prefer any appeal to the Government within stipulated time as indicated in the order rejecting the claim for disability pension. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner was not found fit as he was lacking Technical Trade Test Class-IV. As he was already placed in low Medical category and after due assessment by medical Board his disability was assessed at 11 to 14% (i.e. less than 20%) for two years. He was therefore discharged from the Army service. It is further the stand of the respondent that this disability was not found attributed to nor aggravated by military service. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon the Medical Board proceedings unvaleding all ranks contained at Annexure-A. On the basis of these statements, it has been submitted before this Court that the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected by the respondent on the basis of assessment of disability which was found to be less than 20% and the same was also not found attributable to nor aggravated by military service. It has been submitted that such pension is payable only when the disability is suffered on account of service rendered in the Army. 6. On consideration of the submissions advanced before this Court and after perusal of the factual aspects of the matter, this Court is not inclined to accept the claim of the petitioner projected through this writ petition. The petitioner had defaulted in filing appeal as contemplated in the order rejecting his claim for grant of disability pension. Thereafter, he waited on the Wings for at least five years before approaching this Court by way of writ petition. 7. In these circumstances, the petitioner may be held to be bound by the principle of acceptance sub silentio and the Court sitting in the writ jurisdiction may not come to the rescue of the petitioner. Thereafter, he waited on the Wings for at least five years before approaching this Court by way of writ petition. 7. In these circumstances, the petitioner may be held to be bound by the principle of acceptance sub silentio and the Court sitting in the writ jurisdiction may not come to the rescue of the petitioner. On factual aspects also it appears that the respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner and on the basis of materials available before them, they have rightly taken decision not to grant disability pension to the petitioner. While dictating the order, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is a provision for re-employment in the Army if the disability is less than 20%. He, therefore, seeks liberty to approach the concerned authority in this regard by filing an application/ representation. The petitioner may approach the respondent in this regard. 8. For the reasons noted above, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed.