JUDGMENT Deepak Gupta, C.J.:- The petitioner, by means of this petition, wants that she be granted family pension in respect of her deceased husband Late Siba Prasad Ganguli. 2. The undisputed facts are that Late Siba Prasad Ganguli was a government servant, who expired on 2nd August, 1993. On his death the present petitioner was granted appointment on compassionate basis and joined as such on 29.12.1993. As per the petitioner herself she was paid family pension till April, 1998. It is not disputed that on 27.08.1998 she wrote a letter attached as Annexure 2 to the petition. This letter is in response to a notice dated 22.03.1995 issued to the petitioner. For the reasons best known to the petitioner copy of that notice has not been annexed with this petition. However, from a reading of the reply it is apparent that in the notice issued to the writ petitioner an allegation was made that she had married one Tapan Mallik and, therefore, she was no longer entitled to family pension. In response to this notice the petitioner replied as follows: And it may be pointed out that on 3.4.98 in black and white said matter was informed by the petitioner i.e. named Smti. Champa Ganguli to her office authority concerning her marriage with Sri Tapan Mallik who is doing a Govt. Service as Sr. P. Assistant of Industrial Training Institute under Industrial Department, Govt. of Tripura. And new happy married life are being maintained by said spouse. And the petitioner is completely secured by her present husband physically and mentally and said marriage was organized according to Hindu rites and customs. No secrecy was there on the part of both of them. Thereafter the petitioner in the year 1999 sent a communication to the department withdrawing the earlier communication, dated 22nd August, 1998 and claiming that she had never got married to Tapan Mallik. This request was turned down on 23.06.1999. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, she filed a writ petition before this Court and the writ petition was disposed of with the following observations: The authority has to cause enquiry in the matter and that should be done within a period of six months and further the amount of family pension of the petitioner be withheld till finalization of the enquiry. 3. 3. Pursuant to these directions an inquiry was conducted and the inquiry report submitted by the inquiry officer on 17.04.2002 in which it was clearly held that the petitioner had married Tapan Mallik and she could not be permitted to withdraw her earlier application. Now after 12 years the petitioner has challenged the said finding given in the inquiry report. No reason whatsoever has been given for the unexplained delay. The petitioner is a person who is in government employment. She had earlier approached the High Court, obtained orders in her favour and after inquiry was conducted she did not challenge the inquiry report. Therefore, we find no merit in the petition which is rejected in limine.