JUDGMENT : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner has prayed for quashing of the letter No. 762 dated 29.07.2009 (Annexure-7) issued by the respondent no. 4, whereby respondent no. 4 has rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension on the ground that though the husband of the petitioner was in regular employment, but for less than two years i.e. 31.12.1973 to 16.02.1975. 3. The factual matrix of the case is that the husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as muster roll employee on 26.03.1971 and subsequently vide memo no. V/18/71/65(P) dated 21.12.1973 he was appointed on the regular post. In course of service, husband of the petitioner died on 16.02.1975 in a bus accident and thereafter petitioner applied for death cum retiral benefit, but no action was taken by the respondents and then the petitioner filed a writ petition before this court vide W.P. (S) No. 2275 of 2003. This court vide order dated 18.02.2009 (Annexure-5 to the writ-petition) after looking to the fact that there has been a delay of 28 years in filing the said writ petition, did not interfere in the matter. However considering the pathetic condition of the petitioner (widow of the deceased employee), the respondents-Heavy Engineering Corporation was directed to pay the admissible dues if payable in accordance with law. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only grievance now left to be addressed is whether the petitioner is entitled for family pension or not. 5. The learned counsel for the respondent-Heavy Engineering Corporation has drawn the attention of the court towards paragraph No. 15 of the counter-affidavit, wherein it has been stated that as per service record of the petitioner's husband, his service was regularized w.e.f. 31.12.1973 after completion of one year of continuous service as daily rated unskilled muster roll worker. Further in paragraph No. 16 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the contribution towards EPF/Pension Fund of the petitioner's husband started from the month of March 1973. The petitioner's husband expired on 16.02.1975, hence, the qualifying period of 2 years for pension benefit was not fulfilled, as such the petitioner is not entitled for the pension benefit. 6. Further in paragraph No. 16 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the contribution towards EPF/Pension Fund of the petitioner's husband started from the month of March 1973. The petitioner's husband expired on 16.02.1975, hence, the qualifying period of 2 years for pension benefit was not fulfilled, as such the petitioner is not entitled for the pension benefit. 6. In my opinion, since the husband of the petitioner did not complete the qualifying service of two years from the date of his regular service in Heavy Engineering Corporation i.e. w.e.f 31.12.1973, the petitioner (widow of the deceased employee) cannot be said to be entitled for family pension. Moreover, as observed by this Court in earlier round of litigation, i.e. in W.P. (S) No. 2275 of 2003 that there has been a long delay in filing the writ petition, no further order can be passed by this court. 7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.