Judgment J. S. KHEHAR, J. 1. In view of the factual position depicted in the preliminary submissions recorded in the joint written statement filed on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3, we are satisfied that the claim of the petitioner for family pension is clearly misconceived. Firstly on account of the fact that the petitioners husband was merely a candidate Patwari, and as such, was required to discharge duties as an officiating Patwari during the absence of a regular Patwari. And secondly, the service rendered by the petitioners husband, in its totality, was for a duration less than the qualifying service required for entitlement to family pension. Dismissed.