* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 5866/2006 CHAMELI DEVI ..... Petitioner Through Mr. Rajesh Kumar and Mr. Prabhat Kumar, Advocates versus M.C.D. ..... Respondent Through Ms. Yogmaya Agnihotri and Mr. Sakesh Kumar, Advocates CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA O R D E R % 07.05.2008 1. On 4.4.1967 Mr. Jagan Nath joined service with the respondent- MCD on daily wages. It is the case of the petitioner that Mr. Jagan Nath was regularized on 23.12.1967. On 10.1.1968 Mr. Jagan Nath was relieved from duty. After about 6 months on 16.7.1968 Mr. Jagan Nath filed a suit for declaration and consequential reliefs on the ground that his service had not been validly terminated and he continued to be in service. 2. The said suit was decreed on 27.08.1974 with the court holding that the services of Mr. Jagan Nath were not validly terminated and he continued to be in service and would be entitled to receive all dues permissible with the further direction to the respondent herein to provide him with an appropriate employment. 3. The respondent/MCD filed a first appeal and on not being successful, filed a regular second appeal before this court. During the pendency of the appeals, operation of the decree and judgment dated 27.08.1974 was stayed. The said regular appeal was dismissed as abated with the death of Mr. Jagan Nath in 1985. 4. Thereupon an execution application was filed by the petitioner herein, Smt. Chameli Devi, widow of Mr. Jagan Nath. Consequent thereto on 26th May, 1994 payment of Rs.7,974/- was made to the petitioner herein, Smt. Chameli Devi. Copy of the said letter has been placed on record and the subject matter indicates that the said payment was made in settlement of terminal benefits permissible under the rules to Mr. Jagan Nath deceased. It is further stated that all benefits due to deceased had been paid. Thereafter, the execution application was disposed of by the court as satisfied. 5. The petitioner has now filed this writ petition in 2006 claiming that she is entitled to family pension and other benefits in addition to the amount paid in 1994. It is sated that the petitioner made various representations from 1996 onwards claiming family pension. 6. I have considered the claim of the petitioner but do not find any merit in the same. It is interesting to note that in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent it is stated that Mr. Jagan Nath had only 19 days of service recorded in the service book. It is correct that Mr. Jagan Nath had a decree in his favour, but an execution application was filed and thereafter payment of Rs.77,974/- was made on account of the said decree. The execution application was then disposed of as satisfied. I may note here that the execution application was filed by the petitioner being a legal representative of Mr. Jagan Nath. The said payments were made in 1994 long after Mr. Jagan Nath had expired in 1985. The petitioner cannot now be allowed to raise these additional claims. In these circumstances I am not inclined to entertain the present writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. SANJIV KHANNA, J. MAY 07, 2008 Vld/VKR