Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for the issuance of a writ, in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to revise the pension of the petitioner by taking note of the promotion Order No.RC No.A1/5240/82, dated 27.04.1984, and consequently, direct the respondents to pay the arrears of the terminal benefits. 2. The petitioner joined the Police Department on 02.08.1951 as Grade-II Police Constable and subsequently was promoted as Grade-I Police Constable. It is submitted that on 27.04.1984, the petitioner promoted to the post of Head Constable vide Order RC No.A1/5240/82, dated 27.04.1984, but, it was not recorded in his service book. Therefore, the pension book showed the petitioner's designation as Constable Grade-I. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that since 1985 to 2011, all correspondences showed the petitioner's designation as Grade-I Police Constable; that if the promotion of order 1984 would have been taken note of, then records should have shown him as Head Constable. 3. The petitioner retired, on attaining the age of super-annuation, on 31.08.1985, and that his terminal benefits were calculated in the post of Grade-I Police Constable and recorded in his pension book also. 4. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that the records available and endorsed to the petitioner from 1984 to 2002 showed that the petitioner was working only as Grade-I Police Constable; even in the year 2002, the correspondences received from the Pension Payment Officer showed the designation of the petitioner as Grade-I PC (1689); the petitioner, therefore, has a doubt that the promotion order, dated 27.04.1984, was not taken into account as it was not entered in his service book. It was also not taken note of for calculation of pensionary benefits. 5. It is also the case of the petitioner that the correspondence, dated 24.11.2011, showed that the petitioner's pay was fixed in the year 1985, that too for the post of Constable Grade, but no calculation sheet was served to the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner submits that the petitioner's pay was not fixed by taking him as Head Constable. However, there is no material on record to show, if the petitioner assumed the charge of Head Constable, in pursuance to promotion, as admittedly, inspite of petitioner being shown as Constable Grade-I for all these years, he did not raise any finger against this. 6. However, there is no material on record to show, if the petitioner assumed the charge of Head Constable, in pursuance to promotion, as admittedly, inspite of petitioner being shown as Constable Grade-I for all these years, he did not raise any finger against this. 6. On the pleadings referred to above, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, vehemently contended that the petitioner is entitled to pay fixation as Head Constable, and consequently, revision of his pension and arrears, as the petitioner has not been granted pension, keeping in view the post held by him i.e., the post of Head Constable. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, further vehemently contended, that the Vigilance Department had written to the respondents to take into consideration all the facts and circumstances, but inspite of the direction by the Vigilance Department, no action was taken by the respondents. 8. It is also submitted that it was on 08.09.2011 that a representation was made to the Hon'ble The Chief Minister to direct the authorities to revise the petitioner's pension, but no reply was received to the said representation also. 9. Therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court. 10. The affidavit filed in support of the above writ petition does not give any explanation for the delay. Merely because the petitioner has been in correspondence with the respondents and filed representations, which were not statutory cannot be a ground to entertain belated claims like the one raised in this writ petition. 11. It is contended, that even in 2002, the calculation sheet showed the designation of the petitioner as Police Constable Grade-I only. Be that, as it may. Even if the submission of the petitioner is accepted and the cause of action from 1985 is extended to 2002, still, the writ petition filed in the year 2013, is highly belated, thus suffers from delay and latches, as it is not a case of re-fixation of pension, but for implementing the order of promotion of the year 1984, when the petitioner retired in 1985. 12. Therefore, this writ petition is ordered to be dismissed, on the ground of delay and latches alone. No costs.