JUDGMENT 1. This writ petition has been filed by Dr. G.Siddhan seeking a writ of mandamus to direct the first respondent, the Secretary to Government, Education Department to consider and dispose of his representation dated 19.02.2011 with regard to the sanction of pensionary benefits by taking into account the period of training from August, 1965 to October, 1968 in the College of Engineering, Guindy, Chennai along with his regular service from 24.08.1964 to 26.06.1985 for the purpose of pension. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner, being a Graduate Engineer, was appointed as Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department on 3.2.64 in the office of the Executive Engineer, Palladam Division, Coimbatore District. After serving as Junior Engineer till 21.8.64, it was claimed that he appeared for the competitive examination conducted by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission for the post of Lecturer in Government Engineering Colleges. After having successfully undergone the training from August, 1965 to October, 1968 in the College of Engineering, Chennai for technical lectureship sponsored by the Government of Tamil Nadu, he was appointed as a Lecturer in Civil Engineering on the basis of the G.O.Ms.No.1453, Education Department dated 18.9.68. Subsequently, his period of probation was also declared satisfactorily on 15.10.70 by the proceedings dated 5.12.70 passed by the Director of Technical Education, Chennai in Proceedings No.52366/ Estt. (c)-1/70. Thereupon, he served as Lecturer in various Government engineering colleges, namely, Salem, Coimbatore, Karaikudi and in that process, he was also promoted as Assistant Professor on 2.11.83. Thereafter, due to prolonged illness, he was constrained to go on long leave very often. Subsequently, the petitioner, in order to avoid inconvenience to the department as well as to the students, thought it fit to resign his job on the ground of illness. His resignation was also accepted by G.O.Ms.No.1925, Education Department dated 26.11.86 with effect from 26.6.85. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is that the total years of service from 3.2.64 to 26.6.85 is coming to 21 years, 4 months and 24 days. His resignation was also accepted by G.O.Ms.No.1925, Education Department dated 26.11.86 with effect from 26.6.85. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner is that the total years of service from 3.2.64 to 26.6.85 is coming to 21 years, 4 months and 24 days. As the said period of service makes him eligible for full pension, the petitioner submitted his representation dated 18.9.2007 to the Director of Technical Education through the Principal, A.C. College of Technology, Karaikudi to sanction the pensionary benefits by taking into account the training period from August, 1965 to October, 1968 prior to his appointment as Lecturer as the qualifying service for pension. But, the Director of Technical Education, in his letter No.38826/S4/2007 dated 16.11.2007, informed the Principal, A.C. College of Technology, Karaikudi that his claim is inadmissible in view of Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. Therefore, it was contended before this Court that the petitioner having joined the services as Lecturer in Government Engineering Colleges after being selected by the Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, his earlier service also should be taken into account for the purpose of deciding his pensionary benefits. In this connection when his representation was placed before the respondents, the said representation dated 19.2.2011, till date, has not been considered. Therefore, it was prayed before this Court that a suitable direction should be given. In support of his submission, he also relied upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of D.Vijayarangan v. Secretary, Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal (Addl. Bench), Madurai and others, 2009 Writ L.R. 12 and contended that under Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, a person is entitled for all benefits if he is allowed to resign for appointment in some other post under the Government. For the reason that the rule is silent with regard to resignation, therefore, if resignation is given on the ground of illness or ill-health, for which permission is granted by the competent authority, it should be held that the petitioner is also entitled to all the benefits to which the employees are otherwise entitled to under the proviso to Rule 23 i.e., those who have been allowed to resign to join some other post under the State. Finally, it was also contended that when this Court, while considering a similar case, had given a direction to sanction pension and other retirement benefits to Mr. Finally, it was also contended that when this Court, while considering a similar case, had given a direction to sanction pension and other retirement benefits to Mr. D.Vijayarangan for his 14 ½ years of qualifying service along with interest for the belated payment of retirement benefits, the case of the petitioner also should be considered. 3. A detailed counter affidavit has been filed by the fourth respondent, the Accountant General (A&E), Tamil Nadu. The learned counsel for the fourth respondent heavily contended before this Court that the writ petition filed in the year 2011 after a huge and unexplained delay of 26 years seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus to the first respondent to dispose of the representation dated 19.2.2011 should be rejected by this Court on the ground of long lapse and laches. It was also further contended that the petitioner, having resigned the service in the post of Assistant Professor from 26.6.85 on the ground of illness, did not approach any of the respondents at any point of time seeking the benefit of pension, knowing pretty well that his prayer for sanction of pension is not legally maintainable, since, on his resignation from the post of Assistant Professor, he has forfeited the benefit of pension and other service benefits. While this being the position, again the petitioner has not even furnished any single acceptable reason to condone the long delay of 26 years. Further, it was also pleaded before this Court that Rule 23 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules clearly stipulates that the resignation entails forfeiture of past service. Therefore, when the petitioner in his own affidavit filed in support of the writ petition has made it clear that he has resigned from the post of Assistant Professor on 26.6.85, he is not entitled to any pensionary benefits, unless he proved that his resignation was for the purpose of appointment in any other establishment of the Government. In support of her submission, it was also further pleaded that the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of C.Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining and another, (2008) 10 SCC 115 also stands against the petitioner in pressing the present prayer for issuing a direction to the first respondent for disposal of the pending representation. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. As contended by the learned counsel for the fourth respondent, the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the sole ground of huge and unexplained delay of 26 years in seeking the relief of pensionary benefit. Further, the Apex Court in C.Jacob's case (supra) has clearly held that the provision relating to retiring pension makes it clear that a minimum of 20 years qualifying service is required for retiring pension. When it does not entitle a government servant to retiring pension even on completion of ten years of service, the present writ petition seeking only a direction to the first respondent to dispose of the delayed representation cannot be considered at all. Although the learned counsel for the petitioner has pressed his case on the basis of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in D.Vijayarangan's case (supra), wherein it was held that the petitioner therein having rendered 14 ½ years of service was also entitled to receive the pension and other service benefits even if he resigned the post on the ground of ill-health, this Court by looking at the conduct of the petitioner in this case, who being a Lecturer and subsequently got promoted to the post of Assistant Professor, having resigned from the post of Assistant Professor in the year 1985, should not have come to this Court with a huge and unexplained delay of 26 years with the present prayer when he failed to make any application within a reasonable time. Even today, ignoring the law of limitation on compassionate ground, if this Court accepts the case of the petitioner by giving a direction, now a stage has come when no record is available regarding his previous services. It is not known whether the previous department in which the petitioner had worked, had wound up or carefully preserved his service records. Therefore, even if any such direction is given, the same would prove unworkable due to long lapse of 26 years time. Moreover, the petitioner had made a casual averments in the present affidavit, stating that he resigned on account of his prolonged illness, but, no medical record whatsoever has been produced to prove his resignation impelled by medical illness. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the case of the petitioner, that he resigned on account of illness. Moreover, the petitioner had made a casual averments in the present affidavit, stating that he resigned on account of his prolonged illness, but, no medical record whatsoever has been produced to prove his resignation impelled by medical illness. Therefore, it is not possible to accept the case of the petitioner, that he resigned on account of illness. On that score also this Court is not able to connect any nexus between the alleged case of resignation on illness and the ratio laid down by this Court in D.Vijayarangan's case (cited supra). 5. In view of the aforesaid reasons, since the present writ petition came to be filed after a huge and unexplained delay of 26 long years, this Court must necessarily hold that the petitioner is guilty of laches. Therefore, this Court, finding no merit or substance to condone the huge and unexplained long delay, is inclined to dismiss the writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.