JUDGMENT Patnaik, CJ. -- 1. This appeal has been filed under section 2 (1) of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, against the order dated 29.1.2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP No. 925/2008 (S). 2. The facts briefly are stated the appellant was working as GDR Lans Nayak in the 4 Grenadiers Regimental Centre since 1974. After rendering continuous military service from 30.5.1974 to 10.11.1983 for about 9 years and 6 months, he was discharged from service on the basis of finding of medical report that he was medically untit for military service. Since the appellant had not completed the requisite pensionable services of 15 years, he was not paid pension. Further, because the appellant was discharged from service on medical ground, he was not provided suitable alternative employment. The appellant therefore entered into correspondence with the respondent through Deputy Collector District Sainik Welfare Officer, Shahdol, who requested the Record Officer, Grenadiers Regimental Centre, to grant medical disability pension to the appellant and yet, no medical disability pension was granted to the appellant for the reasons mentioned in memo dated 25.12.1996 issued on behalf of the respondent No.3. Aggrieved, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 925/2008 (S) in this Court but the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by the impugned order dated 29.1.2008 on the ground that there has been a delay of 25 years from the date of discharge from service and 11 years from the date of final communication of the result of the claim of the appellant in approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Aggrieved, the appellant has filed this writ appeal. 3. After perusal of the impugned order of the learned Single Judge, we find that the learned Single Judge has lost sight of the law that in case of pension, the cause of action arises from month to month and that in such a case claim for disability pension should not be rejected only on the ground that there has been delay in filing of the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. 4. 4. In Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others [AIR 2007 SC 1330], the Supreme Court in a similar case of claim of disability pension which had been rejected by the High Court on the ground of delay held: "In the case of pension the cause of action actually continues from month to month. That, however, cannot be a ground to overlook delay in filing the petition. It would depend upon the fact of each case. If petition is filed beyond a reasonable period say three years normally the Court would reject the same or restrict the relief which could be granted to a reasonable period of about three years. The High Court did not examine whether on merit appellant had a case. If on merits it would have found that there was no scope for interference, it would have dismissed the writ petition on that score alone. In the peculiar circumstances, we remit the matter to the High Court to hear the writ petition on merits. If it is found that the claim for disability pension is sustainable in law, then it would mould the relief but in no event grant any relief for a period exceeding three years from the date of presentation of the writ petition. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits as to whether appellant's claim for disability pension is maintainable or not. If it is sans merit, the High Court naturally would dismiss the writ petition." 5. We therefore set aside the impugned order dated 29.1.2008 of the learned Single Judge and remit the matter to the files of the learned Single Judge, who will decide the matter after the respondents file return and after examining the merit of the claim of the appellant for disability pension keeping in mind the aforesaid observations of the apex Court in Shiv Dass v. Union of India and others (supra). Accordingly, the writ appeal is disposed of.