IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/S) No. 964 of 2003 Bhagwati Devi …….Petitioner. Versus State of Uttaranchal & others …..Respondents Ms. Seema Sirohi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. N.P. Sah, Standing Counsel for the State of Uttarakhand. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (oral) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents at length. The petitioner is a widow of one Sri Krishna Lal who was an employee (peon) of a private inter college, namely, B.S.N. Inter College, Roorkee, district Haridwar. This school which was a junior high school was admittedly under a grant in aid at the relevant time. The husband of the petitioner died on 26.2.1979, in harness. The petitioner who is a widow of the deceased Krishna Lal has now filed the present Writ Petition in the year 2003 claiming that she is liable to be given family pension of the deceased. In support of her claim, she has relied upon certain Government Orders (which will be referred in preceding paragraphs). The petitioner has also challenged the order dated 18.8.2001 passed by the District Inspector of Schools, Haridwar by which her claim for a family pension was rejected. Apart from the fact that the claim of the petitioner is highly belated and is liable to be dismissed on the ground of latches alone, yet since this is a matter of pensionary benefit where the petitioner is a widow, this Court is inclined to examine the matter on its merit. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner died on 26.2.1979. According to her, she applied for family pension which was rejected in the year 2001 by the District Inspector of Schools, Haridwar, relying upon the Government Order dated 24.2.1989 stating that the pension/family pension can only be given to the employees who were working in Junior High School under grant in aid, if such employees 2 were working on the relevant date which is 1.1.1989. The admitted fact in the present case is that the husband of the petitioner died on 26.2.1979. The petitioner, on the other hand, contends that apart from this Government Order there is another Government Order passed by the Special Secretary, Government of Uttar Pradesh on 13.6.1973 according to which certain Government employees who were under family pension scheme would be liable to be given pension/family pension. However, on a bare perusal of the said order, it is clear that the said order is only applicable to the Government servants. The husband of the petitioner was not a Government servant and, therefore, there is no relevance of this Government Order in respect of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is therefore entirely misplaced. As such on the merit of the case as well, this Court is of considered opinion that the petitioner has absolutely no claim, for an appointment under the Dying in Harness Rules. In view of the aforesaid, Writ Petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 29.7.2010 Avneet