ORDER : 1. By the judgment impugned dated 05.11.2015, the learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ preferred by the appellant-petitioner claiming pension. 2. In entirety, the order impugned reads as under: “Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. “This writ petition has been filed after 15 years for claiming pension. In view of the fact that there is no documentary proof that the petitioner has completed the qualifying service, therefore, no interference is called for in this writ petition, hence, this writ petition is hereby dismissed”. 3. It is submitted by the counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the appellant worked with the respondent bank for good 13 years and he was also entitled to have pensionary benefits after having voluntary retirement as per the scheme applicable. It is also asserted that the learned Single Bench erred while observing that no documentary proof was available to substantiate the contention that the appellant has completed qualifying service. According to learned counsel, the appellant on oath in the petition for writ stated that he rendered 10 years of service and as such is entitled to get pension as per the provisions of Bank of Baroda (Employees') Pension Regulations Act, 1995. It is also stated that right to have pension is a recurring cause of action, therefore, the claim made by the appellant could have not been rejected on the count of delay. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the bank submits that the period of 15 years may that be relating to pension is good big and such an inordinate delay cannot be condoned in any case, therefore, the learned Single Bench rightly dismissed the petition for writ. 5. Heard learned counsels. 6. Perusal of the record reveals that the learned Single Bench dismissed the petition for writ in limine without issuing notices to the bank. True it is, the delay in approaching the writ court is a reason sufficient for refusal to invoke writ jurisdiction but fundamental principle for such a denial is that delay must have accrued some right in other parties' favour and further that delay could have made the opposite party totally unable to contest the cause due to vanishing of relevant material by afflux of time. In the case in hand, no such eventuality exists. In the case in hand, no such eventuality exists. The respondent bank did not come forward with the case that the record of the appellant is not available with it and further that any third party rights accrued because of lapse of time. As a matter of fact, no such right could have accrued as instant one is a case where lis is between the appellant and the bank only and in no manner that could have affected any other party. 7. In view of it, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Bench erred in dismissing the petition for writ on the count of delay and also for the reason that no documentary evidence was on record to substantiate that the appellant has completed qualifying service. In our opinion, any statement made on oath was sufficient for prima facie satisfaction about completion of qualifying service. Accordingly, the appeal deserves acceptance. Hence, the same is allowed. The order impugned dated 05.11.2015 is set aside. The writ petition is remanded to learned Single Bench for its adjudication on merit.