Heard Dr. Ashok Nigam, learned Additional Solicitor General of India appears for the appellant and Mr. B. N. Rai, learned Counsel appears for the respondent. 2. The appeal is admitted. 3. By consent of both the parties, the appeal is taken up forthwith for hearing. 4. The appeal seeks to challenge the order dated 31-1-2007, whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition filed by the respondent. The respondent joined in the Bombay Engineering Group as a Sepoy sometimes in October, 1967. While on duty he was playing Kabaddi and he suffered from leg injury. He was admitted in the Military Hospital. Initially, the injury was assessed as relating to 20% disability. That was on 8-2-1969. However, subsequently, on re-assessment by the Medical Board, the injury was found to be less than 20% and from November, 1972 onwards, the disability pension, which was given to the respondent was discontinued. 5. The respondent waited all the thirty years peacefully to file the writ petition in the year 2003 to claim invalidating pension. He has sought that pension from January, 1973 and has sought to challenge the Government letter dated 1-1-1973. 6. The learned Judge has allowed that writ petition for the reason that no justifying documents were annexed to the counter- affidavit of the Government. He has, therefore, directed that the respondent is entitled to disability pension at that rate and 10% interest to be calculated from December, 1972. It is this order, which is under challenge. 7. Dr. Nigam, learned Counsel appearing for the appellants pointed out that on the face of it, this is a case of serious latches and the learned Judge ought not to have entertained it, but in any case, on merits there was a justification for the action taken. On a query from the Court, as to why the record was not placed before the learned Judge, Dr. Nigam points out that it was an old record and it was weeded out after passage of 30 years. On a query from the Court, as to why the record was not placed before the learned Judge, Dr. Nigam points out that it was an old record and it was weeded out after passage of 30 years. In any case, on the further query from the Court, as to on what basis it was stated that on re-assessment, the injury was found to be less than 20%, he points out that there were entries in the records of the Defence Accounts Department and, therefore, he has filed an additional/supplementary affidavit of one Major Kulbir Singh, who is a Senior Record Officer at the same Office at Pune. To this affidavit, photocopies of relevant papers have been annexed, from which it appears that the injury of the respondent, which had been assessed on 13th October, 1972, was found to be less than 20%. 8. Mr. B. N. Rai, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand, submitted that the writ petition need not be dismissed on the ground of delay, particularly in the matter of invalidating pension, and has drawn our attention to a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shiv Das v. Union of India & Ors. , 2007 (1) ESC 57 (SC ). 9. In that case however, it is material to note that in the peculiar circumstances, the Court did ask the High Court to look into the matter once again. The High Court had dismissed the petition of similar employee for invalidating pension since it was filed nearly after 20 years. The Supreme Court has observed in the aforesaid case that such a petition should be normally filed within three years. 10. Therefore, without going into the question of delay, we have gone in the merit of the explanation given by the appellants. There is no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of the Senior Record Officer, who has produced the photocopies of the original extracts, which show that the respondent was re-assessed and having less than 20% disability. 11. For the reasons stated above, we allow this appeal. The order of the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. Appeal allowed. .