[2025:RJ-JP:5306-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 765/2024 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15709/2024 Bhagwan Singh Sharma Son Of Shri Rajendra Singh, Aged About 68 Years, Resident Of Lawanya Mohalla, Daal Bazar, Bharatpur. ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Chief Secretary, Secretariat, Jaipur. 2. Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur Through Its Secretary. 3. Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur Through Its General Manager (Admn.). 4. Chief Accounts Officer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur. 5. Executive Engineer, Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Bharatpur Division, Bharatpur. 6. Chief Accountant (Pension), Rajasthan State Agriculture Marketing Board, Head Office, Pant Krishi Bhawan, Bhagwan Das Road, Jaipur ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Suresh Kashyap HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA SHANKER VYAS Order 06/02/2025 1. Heard. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned Single Judge erred in law in dismissing the petition as [2025:RJ-JP:5306-DB] (2 of 2) [SAW-765/2024] barred by latches without taking into consideration the law laid down by this Court in the case of Ismail Khan Vs. State of Rajasthan and Anr., 1985 SCC OnLine Raj 33. 3. Admittedly, the appellant retired from service way back in the year 2016. An employee, at the time of retirement, fully knows and has full notice and knowledge of the period of qualifying service because he starts getting pension and his pension papers are also prepared on that basis. The appellant did not raise any issue at that point of time or even within a reasonable time. 4. The ground of illness could satisfy the delay of few months or at the most six months, but not years. The decision rendered in the case of Ismail Khan (supra) is distinguishable on facts. Therefore, no case is made out for interference of this Court. 5. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (UMA SHANKER VYAS),J (MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA),CJ SANJAY KUMAWAT/RAJAT/14