Rajesh Shankar, J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the letter No. 762 dated 29.07.2009 (Annexure-7) issued by the respondent no. 4, whereby respondent no. 4 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension on the ground that though the husband of the petitioner was in regular employment, but for less than two years i.e. 31.12.1973 to 16.02.1975.
(3.) The factual matrix of the case is that the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as muster roll employee on 26.03.1971 and subsequently vide memo no. V/18/71/65(P) dated 21.12.1973 he was appointed on the regular post. In course of service, husband of the petitioner died on 16.02.1975 in a bus accident and thereafter petitioner applied for death cum retiral benefit, but no action was taken by the respondents and then the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court vide W.P. (S) No. 2275 of 2003. This court vide order dated 18.02.2009 (Annexure-5 to the writ-petition) after looking to the fact that there has been a delay of 28 years in filing the said writ petition, did not interfere in the matter. However considering the pathetic condition of the petitioner (widow of the deceased employee), the respondents-Heavy Engineering Corporation was directed to pay the admissible dues if payable in accordance with law.;