JUDGMENT: Dhiraj Singh Thakur, J. 1. The petitioner claimed that his date of birth was 31.07.1949 and he had to retire on 31.07.2007. Noticing tampering in the service records of the petitioner in the year 2007 in regard to his date of birth, the official respondents issued an Order No. 211 of 2007, dated 21.06.2007 in terms whereof the petitioner was retired from service w.e.f., 31.07.2002. The effect of his overstay in the department w.e.f., 31.07.2002 to 21.06.2007 was to be decided later: A criminal case also appears to have been registered under Sections 420/467/468/471 RPC read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The investigation had culminated in filing of a chargesheet before the court of learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jammu. However, the same resulted in acquittal by the trial court vide judgment and order dated 31.01.2015 on the basis of benefit of doubt. 2. In the first round of litigation, SWP No. 2507 of 2010 came to be filed in which the petitioner claimed-release of provisional pension retrospectively w.e.f., July 2007. 3. During the pendency of the writ petition, on account of the acquittal earned by him, the petition was amended wherein a prayer was made for grant of revised grades up-to-date besides release of G.P. fund etc. 4. The writ court while disposing of the writ petition observed that the benefit of pension etc. could be given only on the basis of the Order No. 211 of 2007, dated 21.06.2007. This was in the backdrop of the objections taken by the official respondents that the petitioner had not challenged the said Order No. 211 of 2007. 5. It appears that with a view to overcome the lacuna, the present petition has been filed, challenging the Order No. 211 of 2007 dated 21.6.2007 at this belated stage in the year 2016. In the present petition, the petitioner prays for quashing the order (supra) on the ground that the same was illegal, unconstitutional and illogical having been passed without conducting any departmental enquiry and without affording any opportunity of being heard to him. 6. Whether the petitioner can be permitted to challenge the order issued in the year 2007 after a period of more than nine years is no longer res integra. 7. A five Judge Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. 6. Whether the petitioner can be permitted to challenge the order issued in the year 2007 after a period of more than nine years is no longer res integra. 7. A five Judge Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr. v. Bhailal Bhai, AIR 1964 SC 1006 while dealing with the issue of laches, held that delay in seeking a remedy under Article 226 more than the prescribed period of limitation would be considered unreasonable. The Apex Court in paragraph 21 held as under:- "21. Learned Counsel is right in his submission that the provisions of the Limitation Act do not as such apply to the granting of relief under Art. 226. It appears to us however that the maximum period fixed by the legislature as the time within which the relief by a suit in a civil court must be brought may ordinarily be taken to be a reasonable standard by which delay in seeking remedy under Art. 226 can be measured. This Court may consider the delay unreasonable even if it is less than the period of limitation prescribed for a civil action for the remedy but where the delay is more than this period, it will almost always be proper for the court to hold that it is unreasonable." 8. Testing the facts of the present case on the touchstone of the judgment (supra), it can be safely seen that the relief prayed for by the petitioners suffers from delay and laches and cannot be entertained at this belated stage. The petition is, accordingly dismissed along with connected applications.