JUDGMENT : Heard Mr. S. Haque, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner. The respondent Nos.1 – 4 are represented by Mr. N. Sarma, the learned Standing Counsel for the Elementary Education Department. The Director of Pension (respondent No.5) is represented by the learned Senior Counsel Mr. U.K. Nair. 2. The petitioner is the wife of Late Upendra Narayan Banikya (hereinafter referred to as “the employee”) and the claim here is to allow pension/family pension on account of the service rendered by the husband. On 1.3.1951 the employee entered service as an Assistant Teacher in the Bapuji M.E. School at the venture stage. The school was provincialized w.e.f. 1.10.1977 and 5 months thereafter on 28.2.1978, the employee superannuated from service. 3. The retired employee died on 3.8.1989 without the benefit of pension. His widow has however filed this case 22 years after the retirement of the employee, to claim pension/family pension on account of her husband. The respondents however resist the claim for pension by projecting the delay and laches of the litigant. It is argued that during the lifetime of the employee, the pension was never claimed by him and therefore after his death, his wife cannot put forward any enforceable claim for pension/family pension, on account of the employee. 4. The Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1974 Act”) as originally enacted, did not provide for pension for the employees of the provincialized schools. Subsequently however, Section 4-A was inserted in the 1974 Act, whereby w.e.f. 10.4.1987, the service of teachers and staff became pensionable. But it is noteworthy that the employee in the present case retired on 28.2.1978 well before Section 4-A was inserted, in the 1974 Act. But even under the amended provisions, only those whose services were provincialized by 5.9.1975, were covered by the amendment but here, the employee’s service was provincialized three years after the appointed date when the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Rules 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1977 Rules”) was given effect. 5.1 To justify the belated claim for pension, Mr. S. Haque, the learned Counsel cites the Supreme Court’s judgment in Assam Madhyamik Sikshak Aru Karmachari Santha vs. State of Assam and Others reported in (1996) 9 SCC 186 . 5.1 To justify the belated claim for pension, Mr. S. Haque, the learned Counsel cites the Supreme Court’s judgment in Assam Madhyamik Sikshak Aru Karmachari Santha vs. State of Assam and Others reported in (1996) 9 SCC 186 . This case before the Supreme Court was of teachers covered by the Assam Secondary Education (Provincialization) Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as “the Secondary Education Act”) unlike the petitioner’s husband, who was a teacher of a middle school. Therefore automatic application of the ratio in Assam Madhyamik Sikshak Aru Karmachari Santha (supra) may not be justified here as the litigants were different and were covered by distinctive Rules. 5.2 Moreover, the employee here was born on 28.2.1918 and since the superannuation age is 58 years for M.E. School teachers, he should have been made to retire on 28.2.1976. Instead the employee continued to serve 2 extra years until 28.2.1978 and retired at the age of 60 years. Had he retired on 28.2.1976, the husband’s service would not be provincialized since the ME school was taken over by the Government, only on 1.10.1877. 5.3 Nevertheless for those who served beyond the superannuation age, the Supreme Court while dealing with the teachers of Secondary Schools observed that, those who served beyond 58 years and have withdrawn their CPF dues on retirement, can re-deposit the CPF amount in order to claim pensionary benefits, as applicable to Government employees, who should retire at 58 years. 5.4 But it cannot be overlooked that the petitioner’s husband is not governed by the Secondary Education Act. But nevertheless, if we apply the ratio of Assam Madhyamik Sikshak Aru Karmachari Santha (supra) on the pension claim, re-deposit of the CPF dues should have been opted by the employee. But unfortunately the employee never opted to receive pension when he retired on 28.2.1978 by offering to re-deposit the CPF contribution, received by him. 6. The petitioner’s husband, during his lifetime, never put forward any claim for pension nor he had agitated his grievance, before any Court. Now 32 years after the retirement of the employee and 22 years after his death, his widow has filed this case to claim pension/family pension and in my considered view, such belated claim should surely be construed as opportunistic and not reasonable. 7. Now 32 years after the retirement of the employee and 22 years after his death, his widow has filed this case to claim pension/family pension and in my considered view, such belated claim should surely be construed as opportunistic and not reasonable. 7. Under the applicable norms, the employee should have been retired at the age of 58 years on 28.2.1976 but he served 2 years extra and he retired at the age of 60 years on 28.2.1978. Theoretically, under the Assam Elementary Education (Provincialization) Service and Conduct Rules, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as “the 1981 Rules”), the employee should have opted for pension under Rule 6 but the Rules became operational, well after the retirement of the employee. In any case, the petitioner has failed to bring any material before the Court to establish that her husband had opted for pension. Therefore, even if we apply the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment applicable for secondary school teachers covered by different set of Rules, the benefit of pension cannot be conferred to the present employee or to his widow. 8. The Court cannot also be oblivious of the likely consequences for allowing such belated claim for pension after 4 decades. This will open a floodgate of such stale claim, having financial implications for the State’s coffer. Hence on this count also, this is not found to be a deserving case for pension/family pension. 9. As earlier noted, the employee continued in service till 60 years although he should have retired at 58 and conspicuously during his lifetime, he never opted for pension. Therefore for service rendered by such employee, the family pension cannot be granted to the widow, who has approached the Court decades after the retirement/death, of her husband. 10. Another aspect of employee’s career would require the Court’s comment. The superannuation age stipulated under the 1981 Rules is 58 years and therefore the employee whose birth date was 28.2.1918, should have ceased to serve on 28.2.1976, well before the M.E School was provincialized on 1.10.1977. Hence the provincialization of the employee on 1.10.1977 at age 59, was perhaps undeserved. Be that as it may, since many decades have gone by, the Court does not wish to pronounce on the justification or otherwise, on the provincialization of the deceased employee. 11. Following the above discussion, this case is found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. Be that as it may, since many decades have gone by, the Court does not wish to pronounce on the justification or otherwise, on the provincialization of the deceased employee. 11. Following the above discussion, this case is found devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No cost.