1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.2242/2007. : : Smt. Prem Kaur Vs. Union of India & Ors. : : Date of Order 25.2.2009 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr. Harish Mann for the petitioner. Mr. Sumit Khandelwal for Mr.Kunal Rawat for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. This writ petition has been filed by the widow of Sepoy, who was enrolled as volunter in Watch and Ward Wings of AOC. Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that late husband of the petitioner was entitled to pension because he had completed more than 15 years of service having been enrolled on 24.7.1942 and discharged on 29.6.1957. According to Pension Regulations of the Army the qualifying period of service is 15 years and he ought to have been granted pension. Learned counsel relied on the judgment of Devision Bench of this Court in Balu Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. : WLC 2003 (1), 368 and Single Bench 2 judgment of this Court in Ex-Sep Muna Ram Vs. Union of India & Ors. : SB Civil Writ Petition No.2961/1996 decided on 30.9.2002. Learned counsel submitted that delay would not come in the way of claiming pensionary benefits because in Balu Singh (supra), it has been held that person retired/discharge from service and that to receive pension is a recurring cause of action. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that Watch and Ward Wing of AOC has been allowed pensionary benefits only by Army Instructions dated 30.9.2003 and after this, the family pension has been granted to the petitioner w.e.f. 30.9.2003. Learned counsel invited attention of the Court towards the PPO issued in favour of the petitioner on 21.9.2004. Learned counsel also cited the judgment of Supreme Court in Shivdas Vs. Union of India : 2007 (9) SCC, 274 and argued that Supreme Court in that case held that in cases of delay, where the writ petition filed beyond reasonable period, the relief could be restricted if the claim is found to be sustainable. It was found that if delay and omission on the part of the writ- petitioner in filing the writ petition laid, which has caused prejudice to the opposite party, the High Court may refuse to entertain the writ petition. 3 In view of judgment of Supreme Court in Shivdas (supra), it cannot be accepted that delay would have no effect whatsoever. The judgment of Supreme Court was also in regard to disability pension whether the relief has confined to only three years. The writ petition has been filed in the year 2007 whereas the death of late husband has taken place in the year 1990. Family pension has already been granted to the petitioner by order of Government of India dated 30.9.2003. I do not find any merit in the writ petition for directing the respondents to grant arrears of pension to late husband of the petitioner and family pension to the petitioner for the intervening period. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.25.