{1} IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO.1065 OF 1994 Sonabai Haribhau Gaikwad R/o C/o Shivaji Gaikwad, House No.1-7-100, Ghati Makai Gate Road, Aurangabad PETITIONER VERSUS 01. The State of Maharashtra 02. The Superintendent of Agriculture Aurangabad Division, Aurangabad 03. The Office In-charge Fruit Research Centre Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth Himayat Baugh, Aurangabad 04. The Registrar, Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth Parbhani, Dist-Parbhani RESPONDENTS ....... Mr.V.D.Gunale, Amicus Curiae, Mr.K.B.Chaudhari, Addl.G.P. for respondents No.1 and 2 Mr.V.B.Ghatage, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. ....... [CORAM : P.V.HARDAS, and A.V.POTDAR, J.J.] DATE : 20th July 2009 {2} ORAL JUDGMENT (PER P.V.HARDAS, J.): 1. A communication came to be addressed to this Court, which was registered as writ petition and accordingly Mr.V.D. Gunale came to be appointed as Amicus Curiae by this Court. 2. The grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that her husband, who was in the employment as a Fieldman at the Fruit Research Center of Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth at Himayat Baugh, Aurangabad, died on 09.04.1964, while in service. According to the petitioner, she was entitled for grant of family pension but the same has been denied to her. It is unfortunate that though the petition, which was filed sometime in the year 1994, has remained pending till today, yet the respondents have not filed their affidavit in reply, though the respondents were directed to do so by the order of this Court dated 09.12.1997. 3. With the assistance of Mr.Gunale, we have perused the averments made in the petition. We are unable to disearn from the pleadings in the petition any right in favour of the petitioner to claim family pension. This petition is bereft, as necessary details as to the scheme which is applicable to the case of the husband of the petitioner and whether the husband of the petitioner had put in pensionable service are not given. In absence of any affidavit in reply on behalf of respondents, we find it difficult to decide the {3} controversy raised in the petition. Further, it appears that the petitioner had not submitted any application to the respondents claiming family pension and secondly no order is annexed to the petition by which the respondents have refused to grant family pension to the petitioner. Further it appears that the grievance of the petitioner in respect of non receipt of the family pension was made for the first time before this Court after 30 years of the demise of the husband of the petitioner. It also appears that no application has been tendered by the petitioner. In the light of that, therefore, we dismiss the petition with liberty to the petitioner to submit application carving out her right for claiming family pension. We further direct the respondents in the event the petitioner thus submits an application, the same be decided expeditiously in accordance with law. 4. Writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Rule stands discharged with no order as to costs. We quantify the fees payable to Mr.V.D.Gunale, learned Amicus Curiae in the sum of Rs.2500/- (Rupees two thousand five hundred) [A.V.POTDAR, J.] [P.V.HARDAS, J.] drp/wp1065-94