ORAL ORDER Petitioner is the widow of late Parmeshwar Prasad, who was an employee of the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board, now known as North Bihar Power Distribution Company Limited. The husband died on 28.5.2001. She made a claim before the respondents for payment of dearness allowance on family pension, which was not being paid to her for reasons best known to the respondents. 2. When the writ application was filed, a stand is taken by the respondents that the reason for non- payment of dearness allowance on family pension was that the petitioner herself was a government servant and was a teacher in a government school and she was drawing her own advantages thereof. She superannuated on 31.8.2009 and, therefore, she was not being given the benefit of dearness allowance twice over. 3. Yet another objection taken on behalf of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that she had made a claim after more than 10 years. 4. The justification for non grant of dearness allowance on family pension seems to be in teeth of not only decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court but even certain decisions of the Patna High Court as well. In this regard counsel representing the petitioner is correct in bringing to the notice of this Court a Division Bench decision of this Court, which is the case of Smt. Shardha Devi v. State of Bihar, reported in 2002 (3) PLJR 527 as well as a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court, which is the case of H.S.E.B & others v. Azad Kaur, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 227 . 5. A look at the finding given by the Hon’ble Apex Court in paragraph 7 answers the question. Paragraph 7 of the said judgment is quoted herein below:- “7. Our attention is drawn to a decision of the Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Swaran Kaur v. State of Punjab where the High Court, after ascertaining that the petitioner therein had not secured any job on compassionate grounds on account of the death of her husband, nor had any family member done so, held that dearness allowance on family pension could not be withheld. It said that the fact that the widow was in service at the time when her husband died would not deprive her of dearness allowance on family pension when the employment was not on compassionate grounds. We, therefore, agree with the reasoning and conclusion reached by the High Court in the impugned judgment.” 6. So far as objection with regard to delay in making such a claim is concerned, since non-grant of dearness allowance is continuing right so far as petitioner is concerned, therefore, even if she has asserted her right at a belated stage, she cannot be denied the same specially when the same was not paid for a non-justifiable reason and contrary to the law of the land. 7. Writ application is allowed. Respondents are directed to make payment of the dearness allowance on the family pension of the petitioner from the due date and they shall continue to pay the same till she is entitled for such family pension. Writ application stands allowed in terms of the above. 8. Respondents are directed to ensure that such payment must accrue to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.