Tashi Rabstan, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against judgment dated 05.06.2009 passed by the learned writ Court in SWP No. 2580/2002 whereby the writ petitioner was held not entitled to receive Special Pension on the ground that he had not rendered the requisite minimum 15 years qualifying service. The said order of the learned Single Judge is challenged in this Appeal by the writ petitioner/Appellant, who later on died during the pendency of the Appeal and his legal heir (Smt. Preeto Devi, his wife) has been brought on record. 2. The facts which are not disputed are that the writ petitioner (husband of the appellant herein) was enrolled in the Indian Army (The Dogra Regiment) on July 21, 1958 and was discharged from service on fulfilling the conditions of his enrolment, being surplus to establishment under Army Rule 13 Item (iii) IV of Army Rules, 1954 after rendering 9 years 93 days service. On this, he filed the above said writ petition before the Single Bench with a prayer to direct the respondents to grant him service pension and other benefits including the arrears. But, the writ Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the writ petitioner was not entitled to receive any service pension because he was discharged from service being surplus to the establishment under Army Rule 13 (iii) IV of Army Rules, 1954 and thus had not rendered the requisite minimum 15 years qualifying service. 3. It is this order of dismissal of writ petition which is called in question in this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ record. 5. Regulation 132 of the Pension Regulations for The Army, 1961 Part I is reproduced hereunder:- "132. The minimum period of qualifying service (without weightage) actually rendered and required for earning service pension shall be 15 years." 6. Learned counsel for the appellant referred a judgment passed by a learned Single Bench of this Court in SWP No. 2341/2000 titled Tara Singh v. Union of India and ors. 7. In this referred writ petition, the petitioner was short of qualifying service of 15 years for grant of pension which is less than 12 months because the respondents, on 15.11.1971, called the petitioner for colours service. He, however, did not report. 7. In this referred writ petition, the petitioner was short of qualifying service of 15 years for grant of pension which is less than 12 months because the respondents, on 15.11.1971, called the petitioner for colours service. He, however, did not report. Therefore, the dispute in that case is regarding counting of service of colours whereas in the present writ petition, petitioner was simply seeking service pension on being rendering only 9 years 93 days service while he was discharged from service being surplus to the Establishment. Besides it, the petitioner was discharged on 22nd October, 1967 and the writ petition was filed before the Court on 18.10.2002. There is also no explanation of delay and laches as to why the petition has been preferred after the period of almost 35 years. 8. In the above backdrop, we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Writ Court. 9. In the totality of the circumstances, the Appeal fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.