JUDGEMENT 1. Heard Shri Mrityunjay Kumar Tiwary, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned A.C. to S.C. 24. 2. The present petition has been filed with a prayer to direct the respondent- authority to fix and pay family pension to the petitioner, who is wife of an A.S.I., who retired in the year 1957 and died on 1.1.1980. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to paragraph-10 of the petition, submits that on 20.12.1990, the petitioner had approached the respondent no. 5 i.e. Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarpur for payment of family pension by filing an affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner had also sworn an affidavit on 13.12.1990 to show that she was wife of late Saryug Prasad, who retired as A.S.I, in the year 1957 and died on 1.1.1980. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed Annexure-3 to the petition, which is a matriculation certification to show that in the year 1968, she had appeared in matriculation examination and passed with 2nd Division. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to Annexure-4, which is a photocopy of registered Bakshish Nama to show that the petitioner was wife of late Saryug Prasad. On aforesaid strength, it has been prayed for directing the respondents for payment of family pension to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submits that even from page-31 to the petitioner, which is an enclosure to Annexure-9, it has been indicated by the Information Officer that against the name of Saryug Prasad, P.P.O. number was allotted. However, no further information was available due to the reason that record was very old: 5. Besides hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Annexure-3, which is the certificate of matriculation issued by Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar shows that in the said certificate, instead of name of her husband her father is mentioned and petitioner had appeared and passed the examination of matriculation, which was held in the year 1968. In view of the fact that petitioner claims to be wife of an employee, who had retired long back in the year 1957, it is difficult to conceive the reason for non-mentioning of the name of her husband in the certificate for an examination, which was conducted in the year 1968. In view of the fact that petitioner claims to be wife of an employee, who had retired long back in the year 1957, it is difficult to conceive the reason for non-mentioning of the name of her husband in the certificate for an examination, which was conducted in the year 1968. In place of her husband, name of her father is mentioned. 6. Be that as it may, fact remains that so-called husband of the petitioner superannuated in the year 1957 and died on 1.1.1980. Subsequently, after expiry of more than about 30 years, the petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer to direct for payment of family pension. Of course, some explanation has been mentioned in the petition and it has been indicated that in the month of December, 1990, the petitioner had filed representation before the Superintendent of Police. The court is of the opinion that in such stale matter, it is not advisable for this Court to exercise discretionary writ jurisdiction. 7. In view of the matter, being stale, the court is not inclined to interfere into the matter. The petition stands rejected.