Judgment 1. This is the fourth case attempting to raise the same issue which was decided by a petition of 1976, by a petition of 1980, by a petition of 2003 and a Letters Patent Appeal now in 2004. 2. The issue whether the resignation had been accepted or not became the subject matter of a petition filed by the petitioner husband Musafir Prasad Sinha. This was C.W.J.C. No. 2190 of 1980. For the record that these were the issues, the order of 12 November, 1981 is reproduced. This order in itself referred to an earlier petition, C.W.J.C. No. 2478 of 1976. The order reads thus: "The question which arises in this writ application is whether the petitioner submitted a joint letter of resignation with the respondent no. 2 and whether the petitioners resignation was validly accepted. On an earlier occasion the matter had come to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2478/76 which was heard and disposed of on 18.1.1978 by the Hon ble Mr. Justice S. Ali Ahmad. The matter was remanded. Mr. Basudeva Prasad has referred to the judgment of the respondent no. 7 as contained in Annexure-12 and specially to the observations made in paragraphs 4 to 6 and contended that the authority was wrong in assuming that the scope of the enquiry was limited by the High Court. He suggested that all the questions arising in the case should have been decided by respondent no. 7 Mr. Radha Mohan appearing for the respondent no. 2 has challenged the interpretation of High Courts Judgment which is Annexure-7 to the writ application. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties for some time and going through the Annexure-7 it appears desirable that the present case is placed for hearing before the Hon ble Mr. Justice Ali Ahmad. Let the writ application go out of the list of this Court." 3. Though the aforesaid order partook the nature of an ad interim order, when the matter was finally decided on the subsequent petition, i.e., C.W.J.C. No. 2190 of 1980, the contention had not been accepted that the petitioners husband could continue in service. The petitioner, thus, was not entitled to pension. This was the end of the matter. The petitioners husband lived to see the decision and died in 2000, accepted the decision and did not challenge it. 4. The petitioner, thus, was not entitled to pension. This was the end of the matter. The petitioners husband lived to see the decision and died in 2000, accepted the decision and did not challenge it. 4. After the petitioners husband died now the widow files a petition (C.W.J.C. No. 5467 of 2003) that all those earlier decisions were wrong and she is entitled to family pension. The Court held that the widow was not entitled to family pension as this is an appendage to the pension of the public servant provided he was entitled to receive it. 5. The learned Judge declined to grant any relief to the widow in attempting to reopen the issues which had been decided. This Court finds that there is no error in the order of learned Judge dismissing the petition by the order of 28 November, 2003. In the circumstances, this Letters Patent Appeal is misconceived. 6. Not only this, the filing of the petition itself after two earlier petitions had been dismissed was, in fact, an abuse of the process of the Court. 7. Dismissed.