JUDGMENT : Deepak Gupta, .J. This is a rather unusual case where the children of the deceased employee have filed this petition claiming pension after both their father who was the Government servant and their mother who may have been entitled to family pension have expired. 2. According to the petitioners, Dr. Panchanan Chakraborty joined service in the Directorate of Health Services, Government of Tripura on 04.7.1951 and retired on attaining the age of superannuation on 30.6.1966. He was granted an extension of 2(two) years and after the extended period of employment he retired on 30.6.1968. 3. It is alleged that Dr. Chakraborty submitted representation to the Chief Commissioner requesting that pension be sanctioned to him on 23.9.1969. It is also admitted that Dr. Panchanan Chakraborty was granted terminal gratuity of Rs.3,150/- only on 14.10.1969. Dr. Chakraborty did not approach the Court or file any petition. It is alleged that he sent some letters and representations but the fact is that he never approached the Court and he died on 12.01.1988, 22 years after attaining the age of superannuation and 20 years after he had even completed his extended tenure of service. Dr. P. Chakraborty left behind as his heirs his widow (since deceased) and children Shri Sajal Chakraborty and Smt. Gouri Chakraborty. 4. As per the CCS (Pension) Rules, family pension is only payable to the widow. In any event, both the children were much above the age of entitlement of pension even when Dr. P. Chakraborty died. Though Dr. Chakraborty expired on 12.01.1988, Smti. Suhashini Chakraborty, the widow of Late Shri Panchanan Chakraborty, for the first time allegedly submitted a representation to the Government after more than 17 years on 19.10.2005 for sanction of arrears of pension and on 03.03.2006, the Director of Health Services requested her to furnish some further information with regard to the services of her husband. She submitted certain information and certain other documents but on 03.08.2007 unfortunately she also expired. She had also not filed any petition during her lifetime. More than five years after the expiry of Smti. Suhashini Chakraborty, their mother, and almost 24 years after the expiry of their father, the petitioners have filed the present petition claiming the pension. 5. It is not disputed that Shri Sajal Chakraborty is a Government employee and is an educated person. More than five years after the expiry of Smti. Suhashini Chakraborty, their mother, and almost 24 years after the expiry of their father, the petitioners have filed the present petition claiming the pension. 5. It is not disputed that Shri Sajal Chakraborty is a Government employee and is an educated person. There is no doubt that pension is not a bounty and it is the right of the employee to get pension. There can be also no dispute with the argument of Mr. D.K. Das Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners that pension is property and the person entitled to claim that property can file a petition for that property. However, there has to be some limitation for filing such claim. It may be true that the right to claim pension is a continuing cause of action and if a person who is entitled to pension claims pension after many years, his claim cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation but the arrears which can be awarded to him must be those which accrue within the period of limitation. If the Court finds that a person was entitled to pension, even though that person may have retired many years earlier, pension can be granted to him and normally the payment of arrears is restricted to 3(three) years which is the limitation provided for recovery of monetary benefits due. 6. As far as the present case is concerned, the situation is much worse. Both the petitioners are not entitled to pension. The cause of action to claim pension has been extinguished after the death of Smti. Suhashini Chakraborty. Assuming that she had a right to claim pension even if at that time the claim had been filed, arrears of only three years could have been granted at the most. The writ petition has been filed more than 5(five) years after the death of the mother and, therefore, we are clearly of the view that the petition is miserably time barred and hit by the principles of delay and laches and on this ground alone the petition is rejected. 7. Therefore, we find no merit in the petition which is accordingly dismissed.