JUDGMENT 1. The petitioner herein seeks for issuance of a writ of certiorarified mandamus to call for the records relating to the proceedings of the 3rd respondent in PEN/20/I/12000653/09-10/ADK, dated 13.08.2009, and proceedings of the 1st respondent in Na.Ka.No.83/al/2010, dated 29.08.2010, quash the same and direct the respondents to grant family pension to the petitioner with effect from 15.09.1995 with all consequential benefits including payment of arrears flowing therefrom. 2. Ms.Y.Kavitha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, by stating that the request of the petitioner for payment of 'family pension' has been repeatedly rejected by the 2nd respondent on the ground that there was no entry regarding voluntary retirement of the petitioner's husband from service and that he actually resigned from service, at the first instance, briefly pointed out the facts to the effect that the petitioner's husband- late A.G.Perumalsamy was appointed as Teacher on 13.08.1958 with posting at the Board Elementary School, Sungaramadakku, and on 05.11.1974, he submitted his resignation from the post of Head Master while serving in Sindhlippu Panchayat Union Elementary School. The Commissioner of Kudimangalam Panchayat Union accepted the resignation vide proceedings Pa.Mu.No.7973/73/C1, dated 27.02.1975. At the time of resignation, he had put in 16 years, 2 months and 22 days of service. Subsequently, he passed away on 15.09.1995. A similar case as that of the petitioner for payment of family pension was considered positively, therefore, she made a representation on 10.01.2009. Though the same was forwarded to the 2nd respondent by the first respondent through letter Reg.R.C. No.106/2009/A1, dated 23.02.2009, sadly, the third respondent returned the proposals by reply No.PEN 20/I/P93-1550/FP/08-09/ADK, dated 03.03.2009, stating that there was no entry regarding the resignation of the petitioner's husband in the service records. Again, the petitioner made a detailed representation, dated 17.06.2009, to the first respondent clarifying the doubts raised by the said Authority in his communication dated 03.03.2009. Even after receiving the same, the 3rd respondent again rejected the request of the petitioner for payment of family pension by assigning a reason that the petitioner's husband himself was not eligible for pension since he resigned from service and therefore, his legal heirs are not entitled to claim any family pension. Referring to the reply dated 13.08.2009, the first respondent rejected the petitioner's application, vide communication dated 29.08.2010, stating that the family of the employee who resigned from the post is not eligible for 'family pension'. 3. Referring to the reply dated 13.08.2009, the first respondent rejected the petitioner's application, vide communication dated 29.08.2010, stating that the family of the employee who resigned from the post is not eligible for 'family pension'. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner pleaded that the rejection orders passed by R-1 and R-3 are untenable and liable to be interfered with for the following reasons. "a) The impugned orders are contrary to the Government Order in G.O. Ms. No.37, Department of Education Science and Technology, dated 05.01.1983, which clearly says that even the employees, who resigned, are also entitled to pensionary benefits, therefore, the impugned orders passed clearly reflect non-application of mind on the part of the authorities concerned. b) The prayer sought for deserves all acceptance in the light of a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in W.A. No.606 of 2001 wherein it was held that even if the Government employee resigned after the crucial date, family pension is to be granted without any reference to the crucial date. c) When this Court already held vide order dated 30.08.2010 in W.P. (MD) No.7510 of 2010, that resignation will also amount to retirement, the respondents should have sanctioned family pension to the petitioners having regard to the fact that the employee/petitioner's husband admittedly had put in 16 years, 2 months and 22 days of service. d) In the light of a Division Bench decision of this Court in the Government of Tamil Nadu and another v. S.V.Paul Jayaraj (2001-3-MLJ-430), the petitioner can successfully overcome the issue of forfeiture of pensionable service due to resignation of her husband as the same has already been decided in favour of the petitioner. e) G.O. Ms. NO.37, Department of Education Science and Technology, dated 05.01.1983, makes it clear that all those teachers, who resigned from service prior to the respective crucial dates are also entitled to pensionary benefits. In the decision reported in 2001-3-MLJ-40 (cited supra), on the question relating to denial of family pension to the persons like the petitioner's husband, the Division Bench categorically held by referring to the above G.O. that the provision has to be interpreted as giving a concession even to the persons who have resigned earlier to the institution of the said pension scheme. f) Even though there was a huge delay of 9 years from the date of death of the petitioner's husband to make a claim for family pension, having regard to the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in S.K.Mastan Bee v. General Manager South Central Railway and another (2003-1-SCC-184), to the effect that in similar cases, petition and claim are maintainable despite delay, the same is not fatal to the present claim as it is related to the livelihood of the petitioner. On the above submissions, she prayed for grant of the relief as sought for." 4. Learned Additional Government Pleader, while repeating the stand taken in the counter affidavit, would contend that the petitioner is not at all entitled to ask for family pension when her husband himself did not even seek for payment of pension during his life time. After entering into service on 13.08.1958, he resigned on 05.11.1974, at which time, he was paid with his full entitlements and there was no employer and servant relation between the Education Department and the petitioner's husband. While so, a much belated representation was made by the petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased employee, on 10.01.2009 stating that her husband died on 15.09.1995 and she may be granted with family pension. The petitioner's husband was well aware of the legal position that he was not entitled to pension because of operation of the forfeiture clause in the pension rules. That is why, he never made any request for grant of pension. Therefore, his wife/petitioner herein has no ground much less legal ground to seek for family pension. Despite being informed repeatedly of her ineligibility to get family pension, the petitioner has approached this Court without making out a genuine claim. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for Respondents-2 and 3, strenuously opposing the prayer of the petitioner for grant of family pension, would contend that a Government Servant, whose case does not fall under any of the classes of pensions enumerated in Chapter V, is not entitled to pension. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Ms.Hema Muralikrishnan, learned counsel appearing for Respondents-2 and 3, strenuously opposing the prayer of the petitioner for grant of family pension, would contend that a Government Servant, whose case does not fall under any of the classes of pensions enumerated in Chapter V, is not entitled to pension. In other words, if a Government servant is not able to make out entitlement to any class of pensions as specified in chapter V of the pension Rules, there is no question of having recourse to the rules in the chapter dealing with regulation of amount of pension (Chapter VI of TNP Rules or Chapter VII of CCP Rules) for determining the quantum of pension. With her prime and vital submission that the claim of the petitioner does not fall under any of the classes of pension as provided under Chapter-V of the T.N. Pension Rules, she pleaded, there being no legal basis at all to grant the prayer, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed in threshold. 6. The entitlement of a Government Servant is governed by Chapter V of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, which enumerates the classes of pension thus, Classes of Pension (vide Chapter V of Pension Rules) TNP Rules CCSP Rules a) Superannuation pension b) Retiring Pension c) Pension on absorption in or under a corporation, company or body owned/controlled by State/Central Government iv) Invalid pension v) Compensation pension payable on discharge owing to abolition of the post vi) Compulsory retirement pension vii) Compassionate allowance to Government servants who forfeit their pension on being dismissed or removed. Rule-32Rule-33Rule-34 Rule-36 Rule-38 Rule-39 Rule-40 Rule-35Rule-36Rule-37 Rule-37A Rule-38 Rule-39 Rule-40 Rule-41 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - When the classification under the above chapter only contains 7 categories of pensions, it has to be seen whether the petitioner is falling under any one of those heads. If the petitioner is not able to make out her entitlement under any one of the above 7 classes, neither the petitioner is entitled to family pension nor the authorities have any power to sanction family pension. 7. The husband of the petitioner, who is claimed to have resigned from service on 05.11.1974, is never said to have claimed pensionary benefits like pension, retirement gratuity and commuted value of pension while in service. 7. The husband of the petitioner, who is claimed to have resigned from service on 05.11.1974, is never said to have claimed pensionary benefits like pension, retirement gratuity and commuted value of pension while in service. It was the petitioner, who made a claim for family pension that too, in 2009 i.e., after a period of about 35 years. Having regard to the said back ground, it is but useful to refer to a decision of the Apex Court in C.Jacob v. Director of Geology and Mining Indus. Est. and another ( AIR 2009 SC 264 ), wherein, it has been held that if a person keeps quiet for 18 years after termination and a stage is reached when no record is available regarding his previous service, such belated claim after 18 years should not entertained, for the simple reason that there would not be any material record available to show that the stale claim of any such person can be legally considered. Thus, when the Apex Court has categorically held that in a case of 18 years of delay, no representation or application or claim should be entertained, entertaining the present claim made with about 35 years of delay would totally go contrary to the above said ruling of the Apex Court. That apart, the Pension Rules also prescribe the minimum period of service as 20 years for eligibility to get pension. But, in the present case, the petitioner's husband had put in only 16 years, 2 months and 22 days of service. Till his death on 15.09.1995, the petitioner's husband did not make out any application or claim whatsoever for payment of regular pensionary benefits like pension, retirement gratuity and commuted value of pension. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent, the first claim for family pension arose only in the year 2009, that too, after a long gap of 35 years. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued her case elaborately on the basis of G.O. Ms. No.37, dated 05.01.1983, the benefit of the same cannot be extended to the petitioner since her husband himself, who resigned from the post, never during his lifetime made a claim for pension. Even though the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner argued her case elaborately on the basis of G.O. Ms. No.37, dated 05.01.1983, the benefit of the same cannot be extended to the petitioner since her husband himself, who resigned from the post, never during his lifetime made a claim for pension. While so, it is not open to the petitioner to make out an application with a huge and unexplained delay of 35 years that too for payment of family pension without even showing as to how her husband was eligible to get the benefit of pension. 8. Although a faint argument was advanced by stating that since the petitioner's husband had put in 16 years, 2 months and 22 days of service, irrespective of the fact that he did not make a claim for pension, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the family pension, the same has to be just brushed aside in the light of Rule-33 read with Rule-45 of the Pension Rules which are extracted below: "33.Retiring Pension.-- A retiring pension shall be granted to a Government servant who retires, or is retired, in advance of the age of compulsory retirement, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 42." "42. Regulation of Amounts of Pension.-- A Government servant, who under fundamental Rule 56(d), retires voluntarily or is required by the appointing authority to retire in public interest shall be entitled to a retiring pension. [(2)(a) A Government servant including a Government servant in the Tamil Nadu Basic Service retiring voluntarily after 20 years service or 50 years of age under sub-rule (3) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules shall be entitled to a retiring pension which shall be calculated after giving weightage upto 5 years in addition to the qualifying service rendered by him subject to the condition that the total qualifying service rendered by such Government servant, including the weightage, does not, in any case, exceed thirty years of qualifying service and it does not take him beyond the date of superannuation, as the case may be. The weightage shall be calculated in accordance with Fundamental Rules 56 (3) (d)(i) as specified in the Table below:— THE TABLE Classes of Pension (vide Chapter V of Pension Rules) TNP Rules CCSP Rules a) Superannuation pensionb) Retiring Pensionc) Pension on absorption in or under a corporation, company or body owned/controlled by State/Central Government iv) Invalid pension v) Compensation pension payable on discharge owing to abolition of the post vi) Compulsory retirement pension vii) Compassionate allowance to Government servants who forfeit their pension on being dismissed or removed. Rule-32Rule-33Rule-34 Rule-36 Rule-38 Rule-39 Rule-40 Rule-35Rule-36Rule-37 Rule-37A Rule-38 Rule-39 Rule-40 Rule-41 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - (ii) The weightage given shall be in addition to the actual qualifying service for purposes of pension and gratuity only and it shall not entitle a Government servant retiring voluntarily to any notional fixation of pay for purposes of calculating the pension and gratuity. The pension shall be determined based on the 50% of the average emoluments drawn during the last ten months of service rendered reckoned from the date of voluntary retirement or 50% of Pay plus Dearness Pay last drawn by the Government servant, whichever is higher.” 9. A conjoint reading of both the aforementioned rules makes it clear that a Government Servant who retires or retires voluntarily or required by the appointing authority to retire in public interest shall be entitled to retiring pension only if he has completed 20 years of service or 50 years of age under Sub-rule(3) of Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules. In fact, the Apex Court, in Jacob's case (cited supra) simplified the idea behind it, by observing thus:- " 16. Rule 33 of TNP Rules provides that a retiring pension shall be granted to a government servant who retires, or is retired, in accordance with the provisions of Rule 42 of the said Rules. Rule 42 of TNP Rules provides that a government servant, who under fundamental Rule 56(d), retires voluntarily or is required by the appointing authority to retire in public interest shall be entitled to a retiring pension. Rule 42 of TNP Rules provides that a government servant, who under fundamental Rule 56(d), retires voluntarily or is required by the appointing authority to retire in public interest shall be entitled to a retiring pension. (corresponding Rule 36 of CCSP Rules which provides that a retiring pension shall be granted to a Government servant who retires, or is retired, in advance of the age of compulsory retirement in accordance with the provisions of Rules 48 or 48-A of those Rules or Rule 56 of the Fundamental Rules or Article 459 of the Civil Service Regulations and to a Government servant who on being declared surplus, opts for voluntary retirement in accordance with Rule 29 of those Rules). The provision relating to retiring pension makes it clear that a minimum of 20 years qualifying service is required for retiring pension. It does not entitle a government servant to retiring pension on completion of ten years service. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to retiring pension." Further, when a similar argument as advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner was made before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above case, while dealing with the issue relating to qualifying service as 10 years, it was categorically held thus:- 17. The petitioner contends that if the minimum service for entitlement to retiring pension was 20 years and not 10 years, Rule 43(2) would not have stated qualifying service of not less than 10 years. He contended that as Rule 43(2) of the TNP Rules (Rule 49(2)(b) of CCSP Rules) refers to not less than 10 years service, any government servant who has put in service of 10 years or more is entitled to retiring pension. The said contention is misconceived. As stated earlier, the said rule does not relate to `entitlement' of pension nor does it prescribe the conditions for eligibility, but only provides how the amount of pension should be calculated in cases where the retiring Government servant is entitled to pension under the chapter V of the pension rules. The said Rule regulates the `amount' of pension not only in case of retiring pension, but in case of all classes of pension. Under Chapter V, in certain situations, a Government servant may be eligible for pension even where the service is less than ten years. The said Rule regulates the `amount' of pension not only in case of retiring pension, but in case of all classes of pension. Under Chapter V, in certain situations, a Government servant may be eligible for pension even where the service is less than ten years. Rules 32, 36, and 38 of TNP Rules (Rules 35, 38 and 39 of CCSP Rules) do not prescribe any minimum service for being entitled to pension, where the cessation of service is on account of superannuation, or on account of bodily or mental infirmity or on account of abolition of his post. When Rule 43(2) of TNP Rules (Rule 49(2)(2) of CCSP Rules) refers to payment of pension to a person who has a qualifying service of not less than 10 years, it does not mean that the minimum period of service prescribed for retirement pension is reduced to 10 years or that government servants who are dismissed/removed/compulsorily retired by way of punishment, or those who voluntarily retire before reaching the age of superannuation with less than 20 years of qualifying service, become entitled to pension. Rule 43(2) of TNP Rules (Rule 49(2)(b) of CCSP Rules), as noticed earlier, comes into play only when the Government servant is entitled to any of the classes of pension enumerated under Chapter V of the Pension Rules. Therefore, when Rule 43(2) of TNP Rules (or Rule 49(2)(b) of CCSP Rule) dealing with the quantum of pension refers to a government servant retiring in accordance with the said rules after completing qualifying service of not less than 10 years, it does not mean that pension is payable to persons who have not completed the required minimum number of years (20 years) of service or to persons who have forfeited their service on dismissal/removal from service. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to pension." 10. In view of the settled legal position and the issue having been crystallized through the decision in Jacob's case, firstly, this Court is inclined to conclude that Rule-43(2) of the T.N. Pension Rules does not give any room at all to infer that the qualifying service to get pension is reduced to 10 years, or, in other words, that the petitioner has become eligible to family pension. Secondly, the petitioner is guilty of laches for making the claim with a huge delay of 35 years. Secondly, the petitioner is guilty of laches for making the claim with a huge delay of 35 years. Thirdly, even if the petitioner's case is taken on merits, in view of the fact that her husband himself had not put in 20 years of qualifying service so as to claim pension, no good right flow to the petitioner to seek for family pension. Fourthly, exactly, on the very issue, a learned Judge of this Court, while disposing of W.P. MD NO.284 of 2011 vide order dated 25.04.2012, categorically held thus: "The petitioner contends that if the minimum service for entitlement to retiring pension was 20 years and not 10 years, Rule 43(2) would not have stated qualifying service of not less than 10 years. He contended that as Rule 43(2) of the TNP Rules [Rule 49(2)(b) of the CCSP Rules refers to not less than 10 years- service- any government servant who has put in service of 10 years or more is entitled to retiring pension. The said contention is misconceived. As stated earlier, the said Rule does not relate to entitlement of pension nor does it prescribe the conditions for eligibility, but only provides how the amount of pension should be calculated in cases where the retiring government servant is entitled to pension under Chapter V of the Pension Rules. The said Rule regulates the amount of pension not only in case of retiring pension, but in case of all classes of pension. Under Chapter V, in certain situations, a government servant may be eligible for pension even where the service is less than ten years. Rules 32, 36 and 38 of the TNP Rules [Rules 35, 38 and 39 of the CCSP Rules] do not prescribe any minimum service for being entitled to pension, where the cessation of service is on account of superannuation, or on account of bodily or mental infirmity or on account of abolition of his post. Rules 32, 36 and 38 of the TNP Rules [Rules 35, 38 and 39 of the CCSP Rules] do not prescribe any minimum service for being entitled to pension, where the cessation of service is on account of superannuation, or on account of bodily or mental infirmity or on account of abolition of his post. When Rule 43(2) of the TNP Rules [Rule 49(2)(b) of the CCSP Rules] refers to payment of pension to a person who has a qualifying service of not less than 10 years, it does not mean that the minimum period of service prescribed for retirement pension is reduced to 10 years or that government servants who are dismissed/removed/compulsorily retired by way of punishment, or those who voluntarily retire before reaching the age of superannuation with less than 20 years of qualifying service, become entitled to pension. Rule 43(2) of the TNP Rules [Rule 49(2)(b) of the CCSP Rules], as noticed earlier, comes into play only when the government servant is entitled to any of the classes of pension enumerated under Chapter V of the Pension Rules. Therefore, when Rule 43(2) of the TNP Rules [or Rule 49(2)(b) of the CCSP Rules] dealing with the quantum of pension refers to a government servant retiring in accordance with the said Rules after completing qualifying service of not less than 10 years, it does not mean that pension is payable to persons who have not completed the required minimum number of years (20 years) of service or to persons who have forfeited their service on dismissal/removal from service. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to pension." In the light of above discussion, this Court hardly finds any good reason to entertain the prayer of the writ petitioner. 11. Consequently, writ petition fails and it is dismissed as devoid of any merit. No costs.