Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:12154-DB Court No. - 1 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2288 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ex Sapper Jaivir @ Jayavir Singh Respondent :- U.O.I. Thru. Its Secy. Min. Of Defence New Delhi And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Kranti Kumar Misra,Jitendra Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I. Hon'ble Attau Rahman Masoodi,J. Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner who has served the Indian Army for nearly two years was invalidated on the basis of recommendations of medical board and was thus discharged. Although the claim for disability pension was rejected in the year 1989 yet the same remained unquestioned by the petitioner till the institution of O.A No.259 of 2015. On institution of the aforesaid claim petition seeking disability pension, the Armed Forces Tribunal, Lucknow, having regard to the recommendations of Medical Board, has held that the claimant was entitled to disability pension as no ailment was detected at the time of his entry in service. The O.A. on consideration of the case set up by the petitioner was finally allowed. The tribunal found that the disability pension which was claimed with heavy laches yet looking to the cause being continuing, the consequential relief of arrears was restricted three years prior to the date of the institution of the aforesaid original application. This position stands fortified from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. Tarsem Singh reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 of which the relevant paragraph-7 is reproduced herein:- 7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the reopening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion, etc.,., affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied Insofar as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period is concerned, the principles relating to recurring/successive wrongs will apply As a consequence, the High Courts will restrict the consequential relie relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date c filing of the writ petition. Having regard to the fact that the Tribunal while allowing the claim has taken an equitable view which does not call for any interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we do not find any reason to take a different view or to modify the judgement impugned herein granting the prayer as has been equitably phrased. The writ petition bereft of any merit is accordingly dismissed. (Manish Kumar,J.) (Attau Rahman Masoodi,J.) Order Date :- 28.2.2025 Shahnaz Digitally signed by :- SHAHNAZ BANO High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench