Judgment : Sahidullah Munshi, J. This writ petition has been filed by writ petitioner Smt. Uma Das complaining that her husband, late professor Abani Mohan Das was employed in the regional engineering college, now known as National Institute of Technology, Durgapur, in the month of June 1964 and he died-in-harness on 18th June, 1974 due to carcinomal syndromes at a stage when the husband of the petitioner was an Assistant Professor (Mechanical Engineering). On the death of the petitioner’s husband she received death benefits, e.g., provident fund and gratuity and as her husband died-in-harness, she was also given a job on compassionate ground. The petitioner’s grievance is that no family pension has been made available to her. It is the case of the petitioner that time to time at regular interval she approached the authority for the grant of pension and although, assurance was given by the authority, ultimately, nothing was done. As a result whereof the petitioner had to file an application on 3rd December, 2003 followed by a lawyer’s notice issued on 25th July, 2005 whereby she requested the authority to grant pensionary benefits. The petitioner has annexed a copy of the said application dated 3rd December, 2003 and her lawyer’s letter dated 25th July, 2005 collectively marked as Annexure P-2. In the said application dated 3rd December, 2003 the petitioner stated that her husband joined the Institution in the month of June, 1964 and expired on 18th June, 1974 thereby he rendered 10 years’ continuous service before his death. In the said application she sought to make out a case that Board of Governors Resolution being Item No.7432 read with Government of West Bengal Order No.1097-Edn (CA)IP-2/75 Pt. of 31st May, 1978 and in terms thereof she was entitled for revised pensionary benefits. She has stated that as per the said resolution, in case of a teacher, who died after 1st April, 1974 but before the issue of the notification the pensionary benefits may be settled at either of the rates which will be favorable to him. She has stated that as her husband died on 18th June, 1974, that is, after 1st April, 1974 but before issue of the notification, therefore, she is entitled to pensionary benefits. She has stated that as her husband died on 18th June, 1974, that is, after 1st April, 1974 but before issue of the notification, therefore, she is entitled to pensionary benefits. The petitioner also stated that regional engineering college, now National Institute of Technology, Durgapur, not having any codified rules, conditions of service of the employees are governed by the memorandums and resolutions which she has annexed to her writ petition and relied on the same. In her said application dated 3rd December, 2003 she has also stated “that whatever financial benefit viz. gratuity as well as college’s contribution towards CPF forwarding me/paid to me, I am willing to refund with simple interest the entire amount as per rule so that I may get the revised pensionary benefits as extended by the above B.O.Gs Resolution.” After the said application dated 3rd December, 2003 was filed the petitioner caused another letter dated 25th July, 2005 to be served through her learned advocate upon the Director, National Institute of Technology, Durgapur requesting him to settle the issue of family pension as per the application made earlier. In support of her case the petitioner has also relied upon a resolution adopted by the Board of Governors in its meeting held on 27th March, 1981 which is quoted below: “Resolved that implementation of a Pension Scheme for the teaching and non-teaching employees of the college on the lines of the Scheme introduced by the State Government for similar categories of staff of non-Government affiliated colleges (including sponsored colleges) with effect from 01.04.1974 be appro9ved in principle and Rules and Regulations for implementation of the Pension Scheme be framed by the Standing Committee (Management). Resolved further that, with further reference to letter F53-2/71 T4 of 27.05.72 from the Deputy Educational Advisor (Tech) addressed to all the Principals of regional engineering colleges conveying the Central Government’s approval of Retirement Gratuity, General Provident Fund, Contributory Provident Fund benefits to the State Government or University Rules, the Ministry of Education and Culture, New Delhi, be informed of the implication of the above Pension Scheme.” On the above facts and circumstances the writ petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith release family pension with interest @ 18% per annum on delayed payment of family pension from the date of death of her husband to the date of actual payment. The respondent authorities contested the matter by filing affidavit-inopposition. In their affidavit-in-opposition it has been categorically stated by the authorities that the petitioner is not entitled to receive widow pension in terms of the Pension Scheme introduced in 1985, although, retrospective effect was given on and from 1st April, 1974. The said Scheme introduced in 1985 has a CPF-cumgratuity or a pension-cum-gratuity facility. The petitioner was not entitled to either of the said facilities as her husband did not fulfil the eligibility criteria. It has been contended that the petitioner even otherwise did not apply for such pension until after 18 years when she applied on 3rd October, 2003. The respondents contended that not only the writ petition is not maintainable, no relief even can be granted on such a belated writ petition. The respondents contended that the revised Scheme did not introduce any new eligibility criteria but only revised the rate of pension and the petitioner, although, otherwise ineligible, did not opt for pension as the rates were not attractive but has now chosen to wreck up the said issue as the new rates of pension are higher than those were originally allowed. The issues involved in this writ petition are as follows: i) Whether without exercising option for family pension under the revised Scheme the petitioner was entitled to claim family pension, ii) Whether any right accrued on the date of death of the husband of the petitioner with regard to family pension and even if the Scheme was revised in 1985 retrospectively operative from 1st April, 1974, would it be made available to the petitioner even though no option was exercised for such pension, iii) Whether option so exercised after a period of 18 years from the date of coming into effect of the revised Scheme can be considered and in the facts and circumstances of the case condoning the said delay the petitioner be granted family pension. In the instant case, the petitioner made the first claim in 2003 and writ petition was filed in 2006. She complained inaction on the part of the respondents for not granting family pension on the basis of her application dated 3rd December, 2003 on account of her husband, Abani Mohan Das, who expired on 18th June, 1974. In the instant case, the petitioner made the first claim in 2003 and writ petition was filed in 2006. She complained inaction on the part of the respondents for not granting family pension on the basis of her application dated 3rd December, 2003 on account of her husband, Abani Mohan Das, who expired on 18th June, 1974. In order to defend, the petitioner has relied upon few judgments to show that delay in making application will not defeat the claim. In this case, the petitioner claims that her husband has completed the length of service for eligibility to the pensionary benefits under the Pension Scheme. No gratuity has also been paid to her. So far the length of service is concerned it is stated that State Government Rules as well as Union of India Pension Rules are clear that for the purpose of family pension, period of service requires to be one year. This submission of the petitioner has got no basis because had it been so she would have applied for family pension immediately after the death of her husband and she would not have drawn the gratuity amount as well as contribution towards CPF benefit and it is undisputed that while making application in 2003, that is, after a period of 18 years from the date of death of her husband, she has undertaken to refund the entire amount so taken with simple interest as per rule. So far the question that she has made a belated claim, the writ petitioner has relied on various judgments both reported and unreported in order to cross the hurdle of her writ petition being dismissed on the ground of delay alone. To this extent the petitioner has relied upon the following unreported judgments passed in i) CAN 3691 of 2008 (Smt. Kamala Kayal –Vs. – The State of West Bengal & Ors.) – This is a judgment of Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and has relied on it to show that denial of pension is a continuous wrong. It would give rise to a continuous cause of action each month. According to the petitioner, family pension would not be denied only on the ground of delay and laches. It would give rise to a continuous cause of action each month. According to the petitioner, family pension would not be denied only on the ground of delay and laches. Respectfully agreeing with the view taken by Their Lordships, this Court holds that the ratio of the said judgment is not applicable in the present case, inasmuch as, petitioner never had an accrued right of pension on the date of expiry of her husband and, therefore, the question of continuance of cause of action for the denial of pension, does not arise. ii) WP No.953 (W) of 2006 (Smt. Indu Prava Ghosh –Vs.- The State of West Bengal & Ors.) – This is a Single Bench judgment of this Court and this has been relied on by the petitioner to show that even before the cut off date, if anyone passed away, he would be entitled to pension on a subsequent date. I have gone through the judgment but the fact of the said case and the ratio decided therein is not applicable in the present case. In the referred case the petitioner’s husband reached the age of 60 years and his date of superannuation was on September 30, 1978. He died on December 1, 1980. The petitioner, in that case, approached the respondent authority for granting benefits under the Non-Government Educational Institution Employees (Death-cum-Retirement Benefit) Scheme, 1981. The difference lies here in the referred case; the application for pension was made by the dependent widow but in the instant case, the petitioner did not show any interest until a revised scheme was passed and even after the revised scheme came into force in 1985 the petitioner made an application only in 2003 while her husband died on 18th June, 1974. The petitioner has also relied on the following reported judgments, namely, i) (2012) 11 SCC 561 (Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation -Vs.- President, Rajasthan Roadways Union & Anr.) – By referring this reported judgment the petitioner has sought to take a stand that even without exercising option for family pension a person is entitled to the same if subsequently, the benefit is extended to him or her. The petitioner has also submitted that it is the duty of the respondent authorities to inform the petitioner about the formalities required to be complied with after the revised scheme came into force, although, it is on record that the petitioner never opted for family pension until 18 years after the revised scheme came into force. After going through the said judgment it, however, appears that the ratio decided in the judgment does not support the petitioner’s case, rather paragraph 14 of the said judgment clearly shows that the ratio laid down therein goes against the petitioner. In paragraph 14 of the said judgment the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that in a case where several employees had exercised their option and few of them did not opt for the same, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that since they were interested to get provident fund under the CPF Scheme, they did not opt for the family pension. The Hon’ble Apex Court held further that there can be no reason to think that the employees those who did not opt for family pension were unaware of the notification issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as well as the Corporation as referred to in the said paragraph 14 of the referred judgment. The Hon’ble Apex Court also held that after 9 years, the dispute raised by the Union, is absolutely untenable. Paragraph 14 of the said judgment is quoted below: “14. When we read the notification dated 09.04.1971 issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner along with the communication letter dated 30.07.1971 issued by the appellant – Corporation, it is evident that the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as well as appellant – Corporation had informed all the departments/unions, as well as employees working under the Corporation to exercise their necessary option if they wanted to get the benefit of the Family Pension. Facts would indicate that several employees at that time had opted and few of them did not opt for that, since they were interested to get provident fund under the CPF Scheme and not the family pension under the Scheme, after the death of the employee. We have no reason to think that the employees were unaware of the notification issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as well as the Corporation. We have no reason to think that the employees were unaware of the notification issued by the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner as well as the Corporation. Facts would also indicate that the wife of Hari Singh had already received the entire provident fund amount and, since Hari Singh had not opted under the Scheme. However, after nine years, respondent Union is raising a dispute which, in our view, is absolutely untenable. The Tribunal as well as Courts below have committed a grave error in not properly appreciating the facts of the case and rendered a perverse finding which necessarily calls for interference. (Emphasis added)” ii) 1974(1) SCC 317 (Ramchandra Shankar Deodhar –Vs. – The State of Maharashtra & Ors.) – The learned advocate for the petitioner has relied on paragraph 10 of the said judgment in order to establish that belated claims should not be entertained “is a rule of practice and not of law”. In the said paragraph 10 itself, although, the Hon’ble Court held that delay in filing the petition itself was not sufficient to disentitle the petitioners to any relief in a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution had there been accrual of the cause of complaint. In the selfsame paragraph the Hon’ble Court has also observed that there is no invariable rule that whenever there is delay the Court should necessarily refuse to entertain the petition but each case must depend on its own facts. In the referred case, Their Lordships were pleased to hold that the petitioners in that case were justified to file the petition even after a long delay and that is why the same was entertained. In the said case, the challenge was the validity of the procedure for making promotions to the post of Deputy Collector which involves the question of violation of equal opportunity and since the procedure was not a thing of the past but was still being followed by the State Government, the Hon’ble Apex Court desired that its constitutionality should be adjudicated upon when the same came before the Hon’ble Court at the instance of parties aggrieved by it. In the selfsame paragraph, the Hon’ble Apex Court also mentioned that the principle on which the Court proceeds in refusing relief to the petitioner on the ground of laches or delay is that the rights which have accrued to others by reason of such delay in filing the petition should not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is reasonable explanation for the delay. In the instant case, it is undisputed that the petitioner did not approach the authority concerned for family pension at the death of her husband on the basis of existing pension rules and schemes, she was rather found not to be interested for the family pension. It is her case now made out that after the scheme was revised in 1985 she was entitled to family pension but in the writ petition no whisper has been made as to when she came to learn about the revised scheme which came into force in 1985 and she has also not given any clarification about such a belated claim for family pension after a period of 18 years. If the petitioner’s representation is directed to be considered by the authority this will be a direction upon the authority to do a futile exercise which is not permissible under the law because this Court holds that she is not entitled to family pension in the facts and circumstances narrated in her writ petition. Moreover, at this juncture, if the petitioner’s case is sent to the authority concerned for consideration innumerable persons may run to Court for reopening their case in order to get benefit of family pension meaning thereby a closed chapter has to be reopened once again after such a long period of time, which is not permissible under the law. iii) (1999) 4 SCC 450 (Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. – Vs. – Dolly Das) – Relying on paragraph 8 of the said judgment the writ petitioner sought to justify that delay itself may not defeat the claim for relief unless the position of the petitioner had been so altered which cannot be retracted on account of laches of time or inaction of the other party. I have gone through the said paragraph and the principle laid down in the judgment. The same is not applicable in the present case. I have gone through the said paragraph and the principle laid down in the judgment. The same is not applicable in the present case. In that case, question of maintainability of the writ petition was under challenge because of the delay but, in the present case, although, the representation was made in 2003 the writ petition was entertained in the year 2006 and, ultimately, it has been held that the writ petition is maintainable and direction for filing affidavits was issued. Therefore, this judgment has no bearing in the present case. The other judgment reported in 2008(1) CHN 140 has been referred to by the learned advocate for the petitioner to show that there is no period of limitation fixed for entertaining a writ petition. He has relied on paragraph 21 of the said judgment in support of his contention. The fact involved in the referred case is different from the present one. There the delay was properly explained and the explanation satisfied the Court. But, in the present case, no reason has been disclosed even as to why the petitioner did not exercise her option for the family pension on the basis of the existing scheme and as to why she waited for long 18 years to make an application for family pension under the revised scheme, although, such scheme came into force in 1985. The respondent submits that the petitioner has failed to make out any case for her family pension. On the death of her husband she was given an employment and she, having retired from her job, has been drawing pension as applicable in her case. The learned advocate for the respondent authority has, however, relied on the judgment reported in 2012(11) SCC 561 which indeed has been relied upon by the petitioner. Learned advocate for the respondent has also drawn the attention of this Court to paragraph 14 of the said judgment and relying on the principle laid down therein, he submits that petitioner has miserably failed to make out any case for family pension. According to the learned advocate for the respondent authorities, the writ petition ought not to have been entertained because of laches and also for the long delay involved in the matter. According to the learned advocate for the respondent authorities, the writ petition ought not to have been entertained because of laches and also for the long delay involved in the matter. Having heard the learned advocates for the parties and having considered the judgments referred to by the learned advocates for the respective parties I hold that the petitioner has failed to prove from the record that she had any right for family pension on the date of death of her husband as she has claimed in 2003. If she has no right existing on the date of death of the husband justification made by the learned advocate for a continuing cause of action does not arise and it obviously fails. The petitioner claims that as per revised scheme which came into force in 1985 she was entitled to family pension but, it appears that even after the said revised scheme came into force, she did not make any claim for the family pension, although, she herself was in service in the selfsame Institution where her husband was employed. It is unbelievable that the petitioner was unaware of the revised scheme and she has failed to give any explanation as to why she claimed for the family pension under the revised scheme after a period of 18 years which renders her disentitled of the claim so made. In fact, the writ petitioner is stopped by her conduct for making any claim for family pension in the fact and circumstances of this case. The writ petition thus is dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.