HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATFISGARH : BILASPUR HON’BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. CORAM : ' HON’BLE SHRI V.K. SHRIVASTAVA, J. Present: Shri B.P. Rao, learned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsei for the Railwaysi respondents No.1 to 3. ORAL ORDER (sated 15‘“ November, zoos.) The following oral order of the Court was passed by SR. Nayak, CJ. : Originai Application No.286 of 2005 hled by the widow of the deceased employee has been rejected in iimine by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Circuit Court Sitting at Bilaspur WR§T PETmON (S) NO. 5477 OF 2006 Petitioner Smt. J. Savitri, Wd/o Late Shri J. Narasimu!u, Aged about 51 years, Empioyed as Peon in the SEC; R!y. Mixed High School, BMY- Charoda, Resident of : Qr.No.78]D, Zone-i, BMY—CHARODA, Dist. Durg (CG). Versus Respandents 1. Union of india, Through : The General Manager, S.E.C. Raiiway, GM. Office, Bilaspur Zcne, Bilaspur —495001. 2. The Divisional Railway Manager, South East Central Railway, Raipur Division, Raipur —- 492001. 3. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Ofncer, South East Central Railway, Raipur Division, Raipur - 492001 . 4. Central Administrative Tribunai, Jabalpur Bench, Through : The Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench, Caravs Buiiding, Civil, Lines, Jabalpur — 482001. (for short “the Tribunar’) summarily on the ground of iimitation, deiay and §aches. The husband of the petitioner while in service died on 27-08-1973 leaving behind him the petitioner and one minor daughter. On a request made by the petitioner, appointment on compassionate ground was offered to the petitioner and she has been in service. in addition, a sum of Rs.6966=40 towards PF/REIS was aiso paid to her. After a lapse of roughly 32 years, O.A.No.286 of 2005 was instituted before the Tribunai for a direction to the respondent — Department to consider and dispose of the latest representation of the petitioner dated 18-07-2094 for famiiy pension marked as Annexure-A/13 before the Tribunal. Opposing the Originai Application on behalf of the Department, it was contended that the application is not maintainable; the husband of the petitioner worked only for 4 years 9 months; after the demise of the husband of the petitioner, she was paid a sum of Rs.6966=40 towards PFIREIS. lt was also contended that the service record of the deceased employee was not available to verify the genuineness of the facts stated by the petitioner in her representation. The Tribunal after appreciating the plea raised by the Department with regard to the limitation and in view of the fact that the records are not available refused the direction. sought by the petitioner. Hence, this writ petition. 55 Having heard learned counsel for the parties, there is absoiutely no good ground made for us to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Law helps the diligent, not indolent. lf, in fact, on the demise of the husband, the petitioner was entitied to' family pension under the Pension Rules, the petitioner ought to have agitated her right either before the Department or before judicial forum without much loss of time. in 1974 not oniy she was paid a sum of Rs.6966=40 towards PFIREIS, but also she was offered w 58 appointment on compassionate ground. She did not make any attempt to claim family pension during ail these 32 years. Since the records are also not avaiiabie. it is quite doubtfui whether the copies of the representation now produced before the Tribunai and this Court are actually genuine representations. Assuming that such representations were made in the year 1973-74, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it should be held that the petitioner waived her right by her conduct. Above all, it was pointed out by the Department that the deceased employee had put in 5.x service only 4 years 9 months and, therefore, under Family Pension w ~ Rules, the petitioner is not entitled to family pension. Looking from that l angle also, no case is made out to step in under Articie 226 of the Constitution of lndia and interfere with the impugned order of the Tnbunal. Sd/- V.K.Shrivastava Judge - — , . ¥ v o l ‘ The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs. a l L Sd/- Chief Justiss vvwvn. Gowri