JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is the widow of late Puttoo Lal, who while working as Water-Man at Baheri Railway Station died on 16.9.1962. The petitioner moved several applications/representations on attaining majority by her son for his appointment on compassionate grounds as well as for payment retiral-cum-death benefits and family pension etc. to her before the Authority concerned but to no avail. Then petitioner by registered registered letter dated 16.1.2002 (Annexure-11 to the writ petition) to the Chairman, Railway Board, New Delhi. Her claim for compassionate appointment of her son was denied vide letter dated 26.12.2001 on the ground that claim was highly belated but on the question of family pension and retiral-cum-death benefits she did not get any response. 3. Aggrieved, the petitioner preferred O.A. No. 787 of 2003, Smt. Bilaso Devi v. Union of India and others, before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘CAT’) which was disposed of vide judgment and order dated 29th May, 2007 directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for payment of Ex-gratia pension on the basis of forms submitted by her and if admissible under the rules for payment of the same. It was also directed that this exercise may be concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. It was also directed that this exercise may be concluded within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. When no action was taken by the respondents, the petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs: “(i) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned judgment and order dated 29.5.2007 (Annexure-18); (ii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to give compassionate appointment to the son of the petitioner Sri Ram Das w.e.f. 30.8.1975 or 23.3.1976 when the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment (Annexures 2 and 3); (iii) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus further directing the respondents to family pension, gratuity and provident fund with compound interest w.e.f. 16.9.1962 to the petitioner; (iv) To issue alternate direction and mandamus to the respondents to pay Ex-gratia Pension to the petitioner as per their own admission and direction of the Tribunal; (v) To allow any other writ, order or direction as this Hon’ble Court may think just and proper in the interest of justice and of the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case; (vi) To award the cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the CAT has wrongly rejected the prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment of her son in place of her late husband on the ground that she had not made any claim before the respondents immediately after her son attained the age of disaction. He submits that the aforesaid observation of the CAT is against the facts and material on records as the petitioner has sent registered applications and representations starting from 30.8.1975 just after the petitioner’s son attained the age of majority in the month of July, 1975 for his compassionate appointment in place of his father. 5. He next submits that CAT has wrongly held that late husband of the petitioner had not opted for pension Rules as per Option Form dated 19.3.1958 which is allegedly signed in English by the deceased a class IV employee working on the post of Water-Man. 5. He next submits that CAT has wrongly held that late husband of the petitioner had not opted for pension Rules as per Option Form dated 19.3.1958 which is allegedly signed in English by the deceased a class IV employee working on the post of Water-Man. It is stated that her late husband could not have singed in English he did not have any knowledge of English language, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for family pension and that the respondents have failed to prove that the deceased had actually signed the Option Form in English which fact was also denied by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit filed by him questioning its genuineness. 6. He further submits that petitioner has not been paid any amount towards Death-cum-retiral dues after the death of her husband on 16.9.1962 till date and that direction of the CAT for payment of Ex-gratia Pension to the petitioner with the rider “if admissible under the Rules" is not sufficient and proper, hence the impugned judgment and orders of the CAT is liable to be quashed. 7. In support of his aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon the decision rendered in S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway and another, 2003 SCC (L& S) 93, wherein the Apex Court while allowing the appeal filed by the appellant, has held that- “where a Gangman under the Railways died in 1969 while in service and his widow was illiterate and unaware of her right to family pension and the remedy to enforce that right, it was obligatory for the Railways to compute the payable family pension and offer the same to the widow even without the making of a claim or initiation of litigation on her part. The very denial of pension to her is violative of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Moreover, in the said circumstances, the learned Single Judge of High Court rightly granted the arrears of pension to the widow from the date of death of her husband in 1969 and the Division Bench erred restricting that right to a period subsequent to the date (in the year 1992) on which the widow had given a legal notice to the Railways. In the circumstances, the Court held that the petition and claim pertaining to family pension was maintainable despite delay.” 8. In the circumstances, the Court held that the petition and claim pertaining to family pension was maintainable despite delay.” 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the petitioner is not entitled to get DCRG and family pension as the late husband of the petitioner had opted for SRPF Rule, hence she is only entitled for Ex-gratia pension in lieu of family pension for which action has already been taken by the department. 9. In so for as question of payment of retiral-cum-death benefits to the petitioner and compassionate appointment to her son are concerned, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the petitioner was paid provident fund to the tune of Rs. 1365.94 and SC to PF Rs. 925.32, that the matter of compassionate appointment being of more than 45 years back is a time barred claim. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order passed by the CAT, the writ petition is devoid of merit, hence the same is liable to be dismissed. 10. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has never received any such payment or any other payment whatsoever after the death of her husband on 16.9.1962 till date. 11. Having considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record it appears that the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 16.9.1962. The compassionate appointment was denied to the son of the deceased by the respondents on the ground of delay. It is settled law that an application for compassionate appointment should be moved within 5 years after the death of deceased employee by the dependents of the deceased government servant. The petitioner in the instant case moved the application for compassionate appointment at a highly belated stage. If the son of the petitioner was minor at that time of death of his father, then the petitioner (widow of the deceased) herself could have moved an application for her own appointment on compassionate ground. She having not done so, the CAT has rightly observed that compassionate appointment would not survive today i.e. 45 years after the death of the husband of the petitioner. 12. As regards payment of retiral-cum-death benefits is concerned, it has been stated in the counter-affidavit that a sum of Rs. She having not done so, the CAT has rightly observed that compassionate appointment would not survive today i.e. 45 years after the death of the husband of the petitioner. 12. As regards payment of retiral-cum-death benefits is concerned, it has been stated in the counter-affidavit that a sum of Rs. 1365.94 towards provident fund and Rs. 925.32 towards SC to PF have been paid to the petitioner. 13. In so far as family pension is concerned, the CAT in paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the judgment has observed thus : “4. On the question of family pension, it has been contended by the applicant that being an illiterate person it was impossible for the deceased to put his signature on the service record. It is also alleged that the copy of the service record was not authentic document and that signature of the applicant’s deceased husband was not his own. Being an illiterate person he was not expected to put a pen on the paper, not to speak of writing his name in English. On this question, the respondents, however, stated that merely questioning authenticity of documents submitted by the applicant without any proof is not sufficient. The applicant is merely trying to further his case without any proof or sufficient ground. The question as to how the applicant who is an illiterate person, could write his name in English is not altogether relevant question. However, it is not possible to take decision merely on the basis of suspicion without any other proof of evidence. It is not possible to say that the applicant had not opted for the first scheme of the SRPF. 5. Be that as it may, one has to remain satisfied that the applicant opted for the same and also his widow i.e. present applicant has received provident fund of her husband as stated by the respondents in their counter. Although, counsel for the applicant tried to deny that payment, he has no clear proof to place before the Tribunal for its satisfaction that the widow did not get any dues. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has categorically stated that the applicant is not entitled for family pension as her husband opted for SRPF scheme and all the dues are paid. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has categorically stated that the applicant is not entitled for family pension as her husband opted for SRPF scheme and all the dues are paid. However, on the question of Ex-gratia pension as special scheme pertaining to deceased employee, it appears from page 43 of the counter that the respondents intended to say Ex-gratia pension to the applicant in view of the fact that she was not eligible for the family pension because of the reasons stated above. However, it could not be paid reportedly for the reason that the applicant did not re-submit the requisite paper for the same. Learned counsel for the applicant says that this was due to confusion in the address of the applicant. Paper relating to the Ex-gratia pension was sent to an address where the applicant was actually not available. It appears to me that there was some confusion regarding the address for which the requisite forms did not reach. The counsel for the applicant further states that if the respondents intended to grant her Ex-gratia pension the question still remains open and the applicant may be made to fill in the requisite form and it may be duly considered by the appropriate authority.” 14. In the instant case, there were two alternatives schemes for an employee to opt i.e. (i) Pension Scheme and (ii) Contributory Provident Fund Scheme available before the employees of the Railway at that time. Late husband of the petitioner had opted Contributory Provident Fund Scheme (non-pensionable scheme) voluntarily, hence the petitioner is not entitled to family pension. The facts of the case of S.K. Mastan Bee (supra) are clearly distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case, hence the case law cited above is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 15. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there appears to be no illegality or infirmity in the impugned orders, hence no interference is required by this Court. 16. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ——————