JUDGMENT 1. - None is present for the petitioner even in second round. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the material available on record. 3. The petitioner joined the service as regular Ambulance Assistant on 15.2.1963 and was discharged from service on 2.9.1967. His claim for disability pension was rejected on 7th June, 1968 which was communicated to him on 15.6.1968 wherein it has been observed that the disability Is neither attributable nor aggravated by military service as opined by the Medical Board in its report dated 23rd August, 1967 and In accordance with Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations, 1961 unless disability is attributable or aggravated during military service, he is not entitled for disability pension. 4. It appears that no action was taken after his claim for disability pension was rejected almost for two decades and thereafter, he served a legal notice in pursuance thereto he was informed about earlier decision communicated to him by document Annex.3 dated 19.2.2007. 5. The respondents have filed reply to the writ petition and placed on record a summary of case history of the petitioner wherein it has been stated that the petitioner was suffering from Schizophrenia and it was not aggravated or attributable during military service as such his claim for disability pension was rejected way back in 1968 and merely on the information sent to him after almost three decades, he has approached this Court by the instant petition. 6. The medical opinion has been expressed holding that the disease with which the petitioner was suffering was neither attributable nor aggravated during military service which disentitles the petitioner to claim disability pension as per Rule 173 of the Pension Regulations. No material has been placed on record which may show that the disease with which the petitioner is suffering was attributable or aggravated during military service in absence whereof, the medical opinion expressed by the Medical Board, an expert body on the subject, is not ordinarily required to be interfered with. Even for the inordinate delay, no explanation has been submitted by the petitioner. 7. This Court finds no substance in the petition and the same stands dismissed. *******