Judgment S. N. Jha, S. J. Mukhopadhaya, JJ. 1. This letters patent appeal arises from writ petition, CWJC No.3643 of 1995, which the appellant had preferred for a direction to the respondents to grant her family pension under the freedom Fighters Scheme, and quashing of an order by which the freedom fighters pension earlier granted to her husband was cancelled. The relevant facts are as follows. 2. The appellant claims to be widow of Late Laxmi Narayan Gupta, a professed freedom fighter. According to the appellant, her aforesaid husband had suffered imprisonment for eight years in connection with different cases in course of Freedom Movement. He applied for freedom fighters pension which was allowed provisionally on 16th January, 1973 @ Rs.200/- per month with effect from 15th August, 1972. He received pension-upto April, 1979. On 16th April, 1979 on receipt of complaint payment of pension was suspended pending enquiry add he was asked to show cause. Finally on 5th September, 1984 the grant of pension was cancelled with effect from 16th April, 1979. Her husband died sometime thereafter on 29th October, 1985. On 26th September, 1987 a certificate case being Case No.1/87-88 was initiated for recovery of the amount paid as pension to her husband. The appellant challenged the certificate proceeding by way of writ petition in this Court in CWJC no.7522 of 1994. This Court in its order dated 13th December, 1994 took the view that since the husband was already dead and the order of cancellation cannot be given retrospective effect, the appellant should not be asked to refund the amount already received by her husband, and, accordingly quashed the certificate proceeding. In the meantime, it is stated, the-appellant had filed an application for grant of family pension under the Freedom fighters Pension Scheme. She ultimately came to this Court in CWJC No.3643 of 1995, giving rise to the present appeal, seeking quashing of the aforesaid order dated Sth September, 1984 cancelling the grant of pension to her, husband, and for direction for payment of family pension to her as indicated at the outset. She ultimately came to this Court in CWJC No.3643 of 1995, giving rise to the present appeal, seeking quashing of the aforesaid order dated Sth September, 1984 cancelling the grant of pension to her, husband, and for direction for payment of family pension to her as indicated at the outset. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by his order dated 13-12-95 holding that the appellant could be held entitled only if her husband was a freedom fighter, and since from the materials on record it appears that her husband was a criminal being convict in several cases under Sections 395,396 and other Sections of the indian Penal Code, no relief could be granted to her and, accordingly, dismissed the writ petition. 3. There is no dispute at the bar that in terms of the relevant pension scheme the widow of a freedom fighter, who was allowed freedom fighters pension during his lifetime, is not automatically entitled to family pension on his death. She has to make an application for such grant and the same can be allowed only after enquiry etc. Where the pension was allowed to the person but the same was later cancelled so long as. cancellation stands, his widow can be entitled to any family pension. There cannot be any doubt that the wife does not stand on any better footing than the husband and she can get family pension only if her husband was entitled to freedom fighters pension. 4. Mr. Deo Govind Prasad submitted that the husband of the appellant had filed writ petition challenging the order of cancellation of freedom fighters pension being CWJC No.2934 of 1985 which was unfortunately dismissed for default on 13th August, 1985 and so far as appellant is concerned, she had also made a prayer to that effect in her writ petition. The point for consideration therefore is whether this court should consider the claim of the appellant for grant of family pension after setting aside the order of cancellation of freedom fighters pension granted to her husband after 11 years. 5. Counsel submitted that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukundlal Bhandari V/s. Union of India and Ors. [ air 1993 SC 2127 ] the question of delay is of no significance. Counsel also referred to the case of Dulirchand v. Union of India [ air 1992 SC 777 ]. 6. 5. Counsel submitted that in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Mukundlal Bhandari V/s. Union of India and Ors. [ air 1993 SC 2127 ] the question of delay is of no significance. Counsel also referred to the case of Dulirchand v. Union of India [ air 1992 SC 777 ]. 6. We are afraid neither of the two decisions is of any help to the appellant. The ratio of the decision in Mukundlal bhandaris case (supra) is that the freedom Fighters Pension Scheme does not contemplate any limitation for making application for pension. The ratio has no application to cases where the pension earlier granted is cancelled but the cancellation is not challenged within reasonable time. In the case of dulirchand (supra) the Court held that the pension cannot be granted from a later date. In the present case, as noticed above, the husband of the appellant challenged the order of cancellation but the writ petition was dismissed on 13th August, 1985. The appellant could have got the writ petition restored, by getting herself substituted in place of her husband and prosecuted the case. She could have filed a writ petition of her own. She finally did so but only after 10 years on 25th May, 1995. There cannot be any doubt that so long as order of cancellation stands her claim for grant of freedom fighters pension cannot be considered because, at best she has merely stepped into shoes of her husband. So far as quashing of cancellation of freedom fighters pension at her instance is concerned, we are afraid, after such long lapse of time it would not be proper exercise of jurisdiction to do so. The test, in our opinion, is whether her husband could be permitted to challenge the order of cancel-lation after 10 or 11 years. If the answer is in the negative a different yardstick cannot be applied while considering the reasonableness of time in the case of the wife, i. e. the appellant. As stated above, she cannot claim any better right than her husband. 7. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the writ petition seeking quashing of the order of cancellation dated 5th September, 1984 was highly belated. As stated above, she cannot claim any better right than her husband. 7. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the writ petition seeking quashing of the order of cancellation dated 5th September, 1984 was highly belated. This is apart from the fact, as held by the learned Single judge, that the appellants husband had suffered imprisonment in connection with cases under Sections 395, 396 and other Sections of the Indian Penal Code and, therefore, in view of his criminal background he was not entitled to freedom fighters pension. 8. In the result, we do not find any merit in the claim of the appellant or any error in the order of the learned single Judge. The appeal is consequently dismissed. Appeal Dismissed.