(1.) The petitioner seeks a mandamus directing the respondents to grant her family pension on account of the service rendered by her husband late Sh. Surta in the Indian Army. The petitioner's case appears to be that her husband was employed in the Army between 1942 to 1947. After his discharge, he did not, admittedly, get any pension apparently because he did not have the requisite pensionable service to his credit. He did not make any claim for payment of pension till his death in the year 1994. Thirteen years later, the widow has now sought a mandamus directing the respondents to grant her family pension.
(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, we see no reason to interfere. Apart from the fact that the writ petition is hopelessly barred by delay and laches, there is no real basis for the petitioner to claim family pension when admittedly her husband was not pensioner himself. The averments made in the writ petition, even otherwise, do not prima facie disclose the entitlement of the husband to receive pension as he had served only for about 5 years. That apparently was the reason why he never made a claim for grant of pension during his life time. After his demise the petitioner, his widow, cannot claim a better right than the husband himself.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, argued that other people similarly situated are getting pension. There is, in our view, no merit in that contention either the particulars of those who are already receiving pension have not been given nor has there any Rule, Regulation or other policy decision been brought to our notice under which such a relief prayed for can be granted to the petitioner.