Heard Mr.Salam Rupachandra, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr.N.Ibotombi, learned CGSC for all the respondents. [2] The factual panorama of the petitioner's case is that the petitioner's husband, late Y.Iboton Singh was serving in the Indian Air Force and Sainik School. The petitioner's husband was enrolled as Clerk (GD) in the Indian Air Force on 13.2.1969. After serving for about 9 (nine) years in the Indian Air Force, he was discharged from service on 20.8.1978 on his own request. It is said that thereafter the petitioner's husband was appointed to the post of LDC in the category of Ex Serviceman in the Sainik School, Imphal on 16.7.1982. The petitioner's husband submitted his letter of resignation on 26.4.1999 for resigning from service as LDC by giving 3 (three) months' notice period as per Rule to the Principal, Sainik School, Imphal. The Headmaster/officiating Principal, Sainik School, Imphal under his letter of resignation dated 26.4.1999 w.e.f. 26.4.1999 and relieved her husband from duty w.e.f. 26.7.1999. A copy of the said letter of the Headmaster/officiating Principal, Sainik School dated 27.4.1999 is available at Annexure-D/2 to the Affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondents. The respondents in their Affidavit-in-opposition also stated that the petitioner's husband had stopped attending office and duty w.e.f. 27.7.1999. It is said that the petitioner's husband filed an application dated 23.7.1999 to the Principal, Sainik School for allowing to withdraw his letter of resignation dated 26.4.1999. In this regard, the respondents in their Affidavit-in-opposition stated that considering the in-disciplinary activity of the petitioner's husband, his application dated 23.7.1999; request for withdrawal of his letter of resignation was not allowed by the Principal, Sainik School who is the appointing authority of the petitioner's husband. [3] After the petitioner's husband resigned from his service as LDC in the Sainik School, Imphal w.e.f. 27.4.1999, the petitioner's husband did not approach the competent authority or/competent court against the refusal of the Principal, Sainik School, Imphal accepting the said application dated 23.7.99 for withdrawal of resignation. And he died on 25.9.2001. The cause of action for challenging the refusal of the Principal, Sainik School to accept the said application of the petitioner's husband dated 23.7.1999 for withdrawal of his resignation will not continue after the death of the petitioner's husband according to the well known maxim: ACTIO PERSONALIS MORETUR CUM PERSONA. And he died on 25.9.2001. The cause of action for challenging the refusal of the Principal, Sainik School to accept the said application of the petitioner's husband dated 23.7.1999 for withdrawal of his resignation will not continue after the death of the petitioner's husband according to the well known maxim: ACTIO PERSONALIS MORETUR CUM PERSONA. The cause of action for filing the writ petition for challenging the refusal of the Principal, Sainik School to accept the petitioner's husband's application dated 23.7.1999 for withdrawal of petitioner's husband's resignation from service accrued to the petitioner's husband inasmuch as it was the personal right of the petitioner's husband to file the writ petition against the said refusal of the Principal, Sainik School. The said personal right of the petitioner's husband cannot be survived after the death of the petitioner's husband. Reference: Krishna Singh Vs Mathura Ahir & Ors: AIR 1980 SC 707 . [4] The consequence of resignation from service so far as the pension is concerned is mentioned in Rule 26 of the Pension Rules. For easy reference Sub Rule (1) and (2) of Rule 26 of CCS Pension Rules is quoted hereunder: “26. (1) Resignation from a service or a post, unless it is allowed to be withdrawn in the public interest by the Appointing Authority, entails forfeiture of past service. (2) A resignation shall not entail forfeiture of past service if it has been submitted to take up, with proper permission, another appointment, whether temporary or permanent, under the Government where service qualifies.” [5] Since the petitioner's husband had resigned from service petitioner's husband will not be entitled to get the pensionary benefit inasmuch as the qualifying service is required for payment of pension to an employee and resignation from service entail forfeiture of its service. Over and above, the respondents, in their Affidavit-in-opposition had stated that the period of service rendered by the petitioner's husband in the Sainik School, Imphal was not sufficient to earn him retirement and pensionary benefits by referring to Rule 48 A of the CCS Pension Rules. [6] It is said that the petitioner had approached the Honorary Secretary, Board of Governors, Sainik School Society, Ministry of Defence, CCO Complex Room No.222, Post DHQ, New Delhi-110001 through proper channel for sympathetic consideration of her case and also for granting family pension by filing representation dated 19.12.2001 and the said representation is still pending. [6] It is said that the petitioner had approached the Honorary Secretary, Board of Governors, Sainik School Society, Ministry of Defence, CCO Complex Room No.222, Post DHQ, New Delhi-110001 through proper channel for sympathetic consideration of her case and also for granting family pension by filing representation dated 19.12.2001 and the said representation is still pending. The petitioner also filed another representation to the Principal, Sainik School, Imphal dated 19.12.2001 for forwarding the said representation dated 19.12.2001 to the Honorary Secretary, Board of Governors, Sainik School Society. [7] From the above discussion, this writ petition is disposed of with a simple direction to the respondents to dispose of the said representation filed by the petitioner to the Honorary Secretary, Board of Governors, Sainik School Society, Ministry of Defence, CCO Complex, New Delhi by passing reasoned order as expeditiously as possible. Writ petition is disposed of accordingly; however, disposal of the writ petition shall not cause any impediment to the respondents to consider for payment of any financial benefit entitled to the petitioner for the service rendered by her husband.