JUDGMENT : A.S. Naidu, J. - Refusal to extend the benefit of disability pension to the Petitioner who is an ex Army personnel vide order dated 30th May, 1992 vide Annexure-5 and order dated 30th March, 2000 vide Annexure-8 is assailed in this Writ application. 2. It is averred in the Writ application that after facing rigorous physical, medical and psychological tests by the Army authorities the Petitioner was selected for Army Service and he joined as a Sepoy in the Indian Army of 4th July, 1962. He was assigned enrolment No. 6609331. He discharged his duties with utmost sincerity and honesty and to the best satisfaction of the authorities concerned. He also rendered war service during the period from May 17, 1963 to March 21, 1964 and again from August 21, 1964 to March 7, 1965 and again from May 7, 1976 to October 1, 1965. Recognising his service he was honoured with Raksha Medal and one S.S. Star. Unfortunately however he was discharged from Army service on medical grounds with effect from March 8, 1966 and was issued a certificate of service with a declaration that he was fit for civil employment. 3. Thereafter the Petitioner claimed disability pension and submitted his relevant documents, vide letter dated 18th April, 1966. After considering his claim the CDAP, Allahabad intimated him by letter dated 5th October, 1966 that the invalidated disability suffered by the Petitioner having not arisen out of service in Army nor the same being attributable to nor-aggravated by military service he was not entitled to disability pension. His case however was considered for invalid service gratuity and the same was sanctioned and paid to him. 4. Once again in the year 1992 the Petitioner moved the authorities for grant of disability pension. The matter was referred to the competent authority for consideration, but then by letter dated 30th May, 1992 the claim of the Petitioner was rejected mainly on the ground that the disability on account of which the Petitioner was invalidated did not arise out of Military service nor was attributable or aggravated due to such service. The Petitioner thereafter once again requested the Zilla Sainik Board by filing an application on August 25, 1999, vide Annexure-7, praying to reconsider the matter. To the said application the Petitioner had enclosed all relevant documents. The Petitioner thereafter once again requested the Zilla Sainik Board by filing an application on August 25, 1999, vide Annexure-7, praying to reconsider the matter. To the said application the Petitioner had enclosed all relevant documents. The Zilla Sainik Board after considering the matter once again by letter on March 30, 2000, vide Annexure-8, intimated the Petitioner that as he had not completed minimum fifteen years of service required for grant of pension he was not entitled to the same. Being aggrieved by such communication the Petitioner has approached this Court. 5. The Petitioner averred that refusal to grant disability pension to him was unjust. He had suffered from he disease in course of his service in Indian Army for which he was discharged. Thus the plea of the authorities that his disability was not attributable to Military service or that had aggravated due to that service is not just and proper. He also averred that several others similarly placed like him have been favoured with disability pension and therefore the act of the authorities denuding the Petitioner of the same benefit amounts to discrimination. 6. After receiving rule of this Court, the opposite parties have shown their cause. They have admitted the fact that the Petitioner was selected and appointed in the Indian Army. At the very outset they have averred that the Petitioner was disengaged from Military Service way back in the year 1966 and all his service records have been destroyed pursuant to Rule 595 of Regulations for the Army (Revised Edition), 1987 as the Petitioner was a non-pensioner. However it appears from the Long-Roll maintained by the Record Office that the Petitioner had served the Army only for 3 years 8 months and 5 days, i.e. from 4th July, 1962 to 3rd March, 1966. In consonance with para-132 of the Pension Regulations for Army, the mandatory requirement to earn service pension by a person is fifteen years. So far as the claim of the Petitioner for disability pension is concerned it is averred that no materials were produced before the authorities to reveal that the invalidated/disability of the Petitioner was attributable to the Army Service nor was the same assessed at 20% or more. So far as the claim of the Petitioner for disability pension is concerned it is averred that no materials were produced before the authorities to reveal that the invalidated/disability of the Petitioner was attributable to the Army Service nor was the same assessed at 20% or more. In short, according to the opposite parties, all the service records relating to Army Service of the Petitioner having been destroyed after twenty-five years of discharge of the Petitioner, the application for disability pension filed by him for the first time in the year 1992 invited no consideration and was rejected. 7. A rejoinder to the counter affidavit has been filed by the Petitioner more less reiterating the stand taken by him in the Writ application. 8. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perusing the pleadings and the documents annexed thereto, this Court finds that the Petitioner had served the Indian Army for only a little more than three years. He was discharged from service in the year 1996. His application for disability pension was filed in the year 1992 and thereafter the prayer was repeated time and again. The consistent plea taken by the opposite parties is that as the Petitioner did not make any application within time in consonance with the Army Regulations all the relevant documents were destroyed after twenty-five years and, as such, it was not possible to consider his claim after so many years. The further plea taken by the opposite parties is that the disease or disability of the Petitioner could not be attributable to Army Service, nor did that arise or aggravate owing to that service. In fact no document has been annexed to the Writ application to reveal what was the cause of disability of the Petitioner. In absence of the relevant material being brought on record by the Petitioner in support of his case that the disease or disability which the Petitioner suffered was attributable to Military Service or that had aggravated due to that service, it is not possible for this Court issue direction to the opposite parties to extend the benefit of disability pension to him. 9. That apart, as has been stated earlier, the Petitioner had been discharged from Military Service in the year 1966. He did not take any action for long twenty-six years. No explanation is there for such delay. 9. That apart, as has been stated earlier, the Petitioner had been discharged from Military Service in the year 1966. He did not take any action for long twenty-six years. No explanation is there for such delay. Even otherwise, the order of refusal to grant disability pension was passed in the year 1992. The present Writ application was filed in the year 2002, i.e. ten years after. Though there is no dispute with regard to the settled position of law that not being a suit nor an application to which the Limitation Act applies, a Writ application under Article 226 cannot be dismissed only on the ground of limitation. But then, the equitable principle being that the delay should not be unreasonable and unexplained, a Court may refuse to grant the relief in exercise of its jurisdiction where delay affects the merits of the Petitioner's claim or affects the rights of a third party. 10. In the case at hand, there is no reasonable explanation for the delay. On the other hand, it appears that the Petitioner was negligent from day one, inasmuch as though he was discharged from service in the year 1966, no petition was filed by him claiming disability pension till 1992. To add to that, though his application was rejected in the year 1992, he took ten years to approach this Court. Thus it is apparent that the Petitioner is guilty of laches. The undue delay has not been satisfactorily explained by him. The consistent stand of the opposite parties is that after lapse of twenty-five years of discharge of the Petitioner, as per rules, the service records relating to him have been destroyed, and that disability gratuity has already been paid to him. Thus the opposite parties cannot be commanded to consider the case of the Petitioner in absence of the relevant records, viz. medical certificate, disability certificate, etc. and doing so at this juncture of time will definitely cause prejudice to them. 11. Considering the entire facts, this Court is not inclined to grant the relief sought by the Petitioner and, accordingly, dismisses the Writ application. Final Result : Dismissed