JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:- "(i) That a Writ of certiorari may kindly be issued for the quashing of impugned communication made by the respondent authorities vide Annexure P-12 stating therein that the petitioner is not entitled for increments and pensionary benefits for past Army services from 12th May, 1960 and discharged on compassionate grounds w.e.f. 30th December, 1966 as he was not reemployed under ex-servicemen quota and was already disbursed with service gratuity for the aforesaid period. (ii) That a Writ of Mandamus be issued by directing the respondent authorities to count past Army Services of the petitioner from 12th May, 1960 to 30th December, 1966 for a period of six years 7 months and 19 days for the purpose of increments, pensionary and other consequential benefits". 2. In brief, case of the petitioner is that the service which was rendered by him as a driver (MT) in the Armed Cop Regiment with the Indian Armed Forces w.e.f. 12.5.1966 to 30.12.1966 have to be counted for the purposes of determining his pension, to which he was entitled to, having served with the Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) from 13.10.1967 to 31.11.1997. The petitioner is also aggrieved by communication dated 6.8.2015 Annexure P-12, vide which his representation for counting of his Military service for grant of pensionary benefits stands rejected by respondent No.3. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has challenged the maintainability of the present petition, inter alia on the ground that the same was grossly hit by delays and latches. He has argued that cause of action, if any, arose in favour of the petitioner when he superannuated from Sashastra Seema Bal (SSB) in the year 1997 and no cogent explanation has been given by the petitioner as to why the representation which was filed by him and which stood rejected vide Annexure P-12, was filed in October, 2014 i.e. approximately after 17 years of his superannuation. 4. In my considered view, there is merit in the said objection which has been taken by learned counsel for the respondents, with regard to the maintainability of the petition. 4. In my considered view, there is merit in the said objection which has been taken by learned counsel for the respondents, with regard to the maintainability of the petition. Simply because a belated representation of the petitioner stands responded by the authorities, the same in my considered view shall not condone the delay which exists in the petitioner approaching the appropriate authorities/ this Court for the relief already enumerated here-in-above. 5. Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as there are certain factual inaccuracies in order dated 6.8.2015, he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to bring those factual inaccuracies into the knowledge of the authorities concerned, so that appropriate action upon the same be taken by them. is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. As far as liberty prayed for by the petitioner is concerned, this Court cannot stop the petitioner from filing any representation and hence, if any representation is filed by the petitioner, but of course, the respondents shall deal with it in accordance with their rules. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of, accordingly.