Per Virender Singh, J.— 1. Through the instant Letters Patent Appeal filed under Section 12 of J&K Letters Patent, Union of India, the appellant herein through Commanding Officer, 14 c/o 56 APO and Officer In-charge Records, Dogra Regiment, Faizabad, UP (appellants 2 & 3) has questioned the Judgment/order dated 01-01-2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in SWP No. 2144/2002 whereby writ petition of the respondent (hereinafter referred to as 'writ petitioner') stands allowed, directing the appellants to grant him pension after invoking Regulation 155 of the Pension Regulations for the Army 1961-Part-l (For short 'Pension Regulations), holding that the order discharging him of service was not in consonance with the Rules, with a further direction to grant relaxation to him to draw pension which he would have drawn, if allowed to complete his qualifying service of 15 years. He is also entitled to hi hire pension along with arrears. 2. Brief resume of the admitted facts of the case on hand is that the writ petitioner was initially enrolled in the Army (Dogra Regiment) on 20-08-1956. After completing his basic military training in that very regiment, he was posted to 14 Dogra Regiment on 29-06-1957, thereafter transferred to Para Regiment on 24 October, 1957 being Para Volunteer. On becoming non-para volunteer, he was transferred back to Dogra Regiment in 1967 and posted to 14 Dogra Regiment on 21 -06-1967. 3. On 08-08-1967, the petitioner preferred an application for discharge from service or transfer to reserve establishment. His request for discharge was allowed. Accordingly, he was discharged from Army Service on 15th November, 1967 i.e after rendering 11 years and 87 days of service. He was paid the following monetary benefits which were due to him at the time of his discharge from service: a) AFPP Fund Rs. 1423/- b) Service Gratuity Rs. 440/- c) Terminal Credit Rs. 493.40 4. On 01-06-1988 after 21 years of discharge from service, the writ petitioner submitted an application to Officer In-charge Records, Dogra Regiment (Appellant No. 3) to enquire whether he was eligible to get service pension or otherwise. He was intimated vide letter No. 3947692/15/NERL-H dated 13th of June, 1988 that as he had not completed 15 years qualifying pensionable service, he was not eligible for grant of any type of pension. He was intimated vide letter No. 3947692/15/NERL-H dated 13th of June, 1988 that as he had not completed 15 years qualifying pensionable service, he was not eligible for grant of any type of pension. He also preferred two applications for granting him mustering out pension which request was also declined by the Dogra Regiment intimating him that as per the Rules, he was not eligible even for grant of mustering out pension as he proceeded on premature discharge on his own request. He again preferred another application in July, 1989 making the same request but that too was rejected. His another application moved in January, 2002 for grant of service pension was also rejected on the ground that he was discharged from service at his own request on extreme compassionate grounds before completing 15 years minimum pensionable service as required vide para 132 of Pension Regulations. Aggrieved thereof, he filed SWP No. 2144/2002 which now stands allowed vide impugned judgment dated 01-01-2010 5. It would not be out of place to mention here that after the appellants filed their objections to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches and on merits as well, the writ petitioner filed amended writ petition and sought quashment of discharge order dated 15-11-1967 to which also the appellants filed their objections. This is how the learned Writ Court has now held the order of discharge being not in consonance with the Rules and directed the appellants to grant pension to the writ petitioner invoking Rule 155 of the Pension Regulations. 6. Heard Mr. Ajay Sharma, appearing for the appellants and Mr. Gupta, learned Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Sadotra, Advocate for the writ petitioner. We have also gone through the grounds carved out in the memo of appeal, the impugned Judgment and the other relevant material available from the writ Court record. 7. Mr. Sharma, while taking us to certain relevant rules governing the field with regard to the grant of pension to an individual, submits that in terms of Rule 155 of the Pension Regulations, a reservist who is not in receipt of a service pension may be granted on completion of the prescribed combined colour and reserve qualifying service, of not less than 15 years, pension equal to 2/3rd of the lowest pension admissible to a sepoy. He submits that the case of the writ petitioner is not covered under Rule 155 of the Pension Regulations, when admittedly he had served for 11 years and 87 days only in the Army. The petitioner was not a reservist and the aforesaid Regulations could not be applied in his case at all on any count. 8. Mr. Sharma then submits that the finding returned by the learned Writ Court to the effect that the order of discharge of the writ petitioner is not in consonance with the Rules is not sustainable in the eyes of law, inasmuch as, the writ petitioner himself at his own request applied for discharge from service, which request was accepted by the Army. His transfer to reserve establishment was at the discretion of the Army. Therefore, there was no obligation on the part of the Army to absorb him in terms of Rules governing the field. 9. Mr. Sharma, thus, prays for setting aside the impugned Judgment of learned Single Judge. 10. Per contra Mr. Gupta, learned Senior counsel, while supporting the impugned Judgment, submits that may be the writ petitioner has not completed 15 years of qualifying service, but the voluntary act of the writ petitioner for seeking his discharge or transfer to reserve establishment was not unconditional. Therefore, the appellants should have allowed him to continue in service till he attains the age of superannuation, instead discharging him from service. 11. In order to strengthen his case, learned senior counsel further submits that if one looks at the application moved by the writ petitioner which is reproduced in the impugned Judgment itself, from the subject itself, the intention of the writ petitioner was to volunteer for reserve and not for discharge from service. In fact, he wanted his transfer to the reserve establishment. He is an illiterate person and did not know the consequences of his discharge from service. Therefore, his case calls for a sympathetic approach which is shown by the learned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment. 12. Mr. In fact, he wanted his transfer to the reserve establishment. He is an illiterate person and did not know the consequences of his discharge from service. Therefore, his case calls for a sympathetic approach which is shown by the learned Single Judge in the impugned Judgment. 12. Mr. Gupta further submits that so far as delay part is concerned, in a case of pension, the cause of action is a recurring cause of action which continues from month to month as held in Shiv Das v. Union of India reported as 2007 (1) Supreme 455 wherein their Lordships, in a case of pension, where there was a delay, held that if the petition is filed beyond a reasonable period, the Court would restrict the relief which can be granted to a reasonable period of about three years and in the case on hand, the learned Single Judge, while observing order of discharge being not in consonance with the Rules invoked Rule 155 of Pension Regulations, but restricted his entitlement to receive the pension only for a period of three years treating him to be in service till he completes 15 years as he has already completed 11 years and 87 days. Therefore, according to learned senior counsel, there appears to be no infirmity in the impugned Judgment warranting indulgence of this Court. He, thus, prays for dismissal of the instant appeal. 13. Considering rival submissions of learned counsel for both the sides and going through the record, we are of the considered view that the appeal on hand deserves to be allowed. 14. In fact, the writ petitioner has played very smart in this case. In the initial writ petition filed by him, he simply sought direction to the appellants to grant him service/pensionary benefits only. Even this was filed by him in the year 2002, whereas he was discharged from service in year 1967 i.e. after the lapse of 35 years. He never asked for quashment of the order of discharge from service. In the initial writ petition filed by him, he simply sought direction to the appellants to grant him service/pensionary benefits only. Even this was filed by him in the year 2002, whereas he was discharged from service in year 1967 i.e. after the lapse of 35 years. He never asked for quashment of the order of discharge from service. It is only after the objections were filed by the appellants seeking dismissal of the writ petition outrightly on the ground of delay and laches stating therein that the writ petitioner himself had volunteered for discharge from service or his transfer to reserve establishment upon which his first request for discharge was acceded to, he became vigilant and filed the amended writ petition in February 2008 seeking for issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashment/setting aside the order of discharge with an alternative relief for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the appellants to grant him service/pensionary benefits along with all arrears which plea was also resisted by the appellants by filing objections to the amended writ petition. 15. In the aforesaid backdrop of the facts, the case of the writ petitioner is to be appreciated. Even the learned Single Judge has observed in the impugned Judgment that there is no dispute that the petitioner has slept over the matter for a period of 35 years and no equity can be done to a person who has remained silent, but at the same time extended the relief to the petitioner observing that the cause of action continues, relying upon Shiv Dass' case (supra), whereas entitlement of pension is dependent upon the order of discharge. Therefore, the delay part is to be appreciated vis-a-vis the order of discharge sought to be quashed. 16. Herein, a huge delay in filing the writ petition is staring at the writ petitioner and no equity can be extended towards him. Our view is fortified by the Judgment of Apex Court in case State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, reported as 1995 (4) SCC Page 683. 16. Herein, a huge delay in filing the writ petition is staring at the writ petitioner and no equity can be extended towards him. Our view is fortified by the Judgment of Apex Court in case State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, reported as 1995 (4) SCC Page 683. Relevant portion of the said Judgement is reproduced hereunder: "—Thus, in our view, persons seeking relief against the State under Article 226 of the Constitution, be they citizens or otherwise, cannot get discretionary relief obtainable thereunder unless they fully satisfy the High Court that the facts and circumstances of the case clearly justified the laches or undue delay on their part in approaching the Court for grant of such discretionary relief. Therefore, where a High Court grants relief to a citizen or any other person under Article 226 of the Constitution against any person including the State without considering his blameworthy conduct, such as laches or undue delay, acquiescence or waiver, the relief so granted becomes unsustainable even if the relief was granted in respect of alleged deprivation of his legal right by the State" "Powers of the High Court to be exercised under Article 226 of the Constitution, if is discretionary, its exercise must be judicious and reasonable, admits of no controversy. It is for that reason, a person's entitlement for relief from a High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, be it against the State or anybody else, even if is founded on the allegation of infringement of his legal right, has to necessarily depend upon unblame-worthy conduct of the person seeking relief, and the Court refuses to grant the discretionary relief to such person in exercise of such power, when he approaches it with unclean hands or blame-worthy conduct" 17. In a case of S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, reported as (2009) SCC, Page 479, it has been held that delay defeats equity. 18. Although the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches alone and in that eventuality the ratio of Shiv Dass's case (supra) will not be attracted on the facts of the present case, yet we have felt the necessity of testing it on the touchstone of Rule 155 of Pension Regulations while taking into account the contents of the application moved by the writ petitioner seeking discharge from service or transfer to reserve establishment. May be the contents of the said application are quoted in the impugned judgment, we, for the facility of reference, once again, refer to the same. It reads: "Sub: VOLUNTEER FOR RESERVE. Sir, With due respect and humble submission I beg to lay down the following few lines for your sympathetic consideration and favourable action please. My presence at home is essential due to the following reasons: (i) That I am the responsible male member of my family, (ii) That I have completed 10 years and 11 months of my service and an eligible for transfer to reserve, (iii). That I have landed property that gives a poor yield due to my absence from home. In view of the above mentioned reasons I am not in a position to serve any more efficiently. I, therefore, request your honour to sanction my discharge from service or transfer to reserve establishment" Rule 155 of Pension Rules reads: "155. An OR reservist who is not in receipt of a service pension may be granted, on completion of the prescribed combined colour and reserve qualifying service, of not less than 15 years a reservist pension equal to 2/3rd of the lowest pension admissible to a sepoy, but in no case less than Rs. 375/- p.m on his transfer to pension establishment either on completion of his term of engagement or prematurely, irrespectively of the period of colour service" 19. Perusal of the aforesaid Rule leaves no manner to doubt that even if a person has not earned the qualifying service still he is entitled to pension on completion of prescribed combined colour and reserve qualifying service. This means that he should have a combined service of 15 years both in regular establishment as well as a reservist. Therefore, the only issue which arises for consideration is whether the writ petitioner can be said to have completed 15 years of his combined service whereby entitling him to get pension under Rule 155 once his application for discharge from service is accepted by Army. 20. Admittedly, in the case on hand, when the writ petitioner was discharged from service, he had rendered 11 years and 87 days of service. Therefore, he would be entitled to the pension only once this Court upholds the view of the learned Single Judge that the order of discharge is not in consonance with the Rules. 20. Admittedly, in the case on hand, when the writ petitioner was discharged from service, he had rendered 11 years and 87 days of service. Therefore, he would be entitled to the pension only once this Court upholds the view of the learned Single Judge that the order of discharge is not in consonance with the Rules. Therefore, the entire focus has to be on the order of discharge from service. 21. It appears to us that the learned Single Judge has decided the case of the writ petitioner more on equity than on the rule position. The writ petitioner himself asked for discharge from service or transfer to reserve establishment. Seeking discharge from service, he in his application has stated that he is the only responsible male member in his family and his landed property was giving poor yield due to his absence from home. No doubt, in his application, he has stated that he had completed 10 years and 11 months of his service and was also eligible for transfer to reserve establishment, leaving both the options for the appellants to exercise and his case was considered for discharge from service which he accepted also without any whisper. Not only that he slept over the matter for many years and then awake from slumber asking for pension and seeking quashment of his discharge order. 22. It cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that in terms of Pension Regulations, once the applicant asked for discharge from service or transfer to reserve establishment, his case should be considered only for transfer to reserve establishment and not for discharge from service. This would be against the rules. The Court cannot give any relaxation to the rules on its own. The view of learned Single Judge, that the Authority should have informed the writ petitioner that his request for transfer to reserve establishment was not accepted, does not find favour with us. Discharge from service means non-acceptance of the alternate request and in the present case the writ petitioner accepted the order of discharge. Therefore, in our view, he cannot be allowed to continue in the service till he attains the age of superannuation so as to stretch his case for the purposes of bringing it within the ambit of Rule 155 of Pension Regulations, as held by learned Single Judge. 23. Therefore, in our view, he cannot be allowed to continue in the service till he attains the age of superannuation so as to stretch his case for the purposes of bringing it within the ambit of Rule 155 of Pension Regulations, as held by learned Single Judge. 23. After appreciating the present case on all aspects, we are not inclined to accept the view of the learned Single Judge whereby disturbing the order of discharge being not in consonance to Rules so as to treat the respondent/writ petitioner in service till he completes 15 (fifteen) years for becoming entitled for pension in terms of Regulation 155 of the Pension Regulations for the Army, 1961 (Part 1). 24. Resultantly, the appeal on hand is allowed and the impugned order dated 1-1-2010 of learned Single Judge is set aside. 25. The net result is that the writ petition bearing number SWP-2144/2002 stands dismissed in toto. However, there shall be no order as to costs.