ORDER : 1. By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to release family pension and consequential benefits in her favour along with interest. 2. The case of the petitioner is that her father Joban Dass retired from the service of respondent No. 2 as Dafatri in the year 1977. Thereafter, her father continued to receive pension till his death in the year 1980. After the death of her father, her mother received family pension from State Bank of India, Rampur District Shimla, till 9th July, 2001 i.e. till her death. The Finance Department, Government of Himachal Pradesh issued office memorandum dated 14.10.2009 Annexure P-1, in terms whereof, the definition of the family in clause 8.4 was now to include unmarried daughter also for the purpose of grant of family pension. After coming into force the said office memorandum, according to the petitioner, she was entitled to receive the family pension yet despite having communicated with respondent No. 2 in this regard, as no family pension has been released in her favour, therefore, it is in these circumstances, that the present petition has been filed seeking the relief already referred to hereinabove. 3. The petition has been resisted by respondents No. 1, 3 and 4 primarily on the ground that deceased father of the petitioner being employee of respondent No. 2, respondent No. 1 has nothing to do with the case. Respondent No. 3 has taken the stand that it has not received any communication or information from respondent No. 2 with regard to release the family pension as has been claimed by the petitioner. Respondent No. 2 in its reply has taken the stand that the petitioner is not entitled for the relief being prayed for inter-alia on the ground that though issuance of the instructions being relied upon by the petitioner are not disputed but the petitioner never took up the matter with the concerned Authority after the issuance of instructions Annexure A-1 and she arose from her slumber only in the year 2017 and since all the documents pertaining to late Joban Dass stand weeded out, therefore, respondent No. 2 is not in a position to issue family pension in favour of the petitioner. It is further the stand of the said respondent that the petition is barred by delay and latches. 4. It is further the stand of the said respondent that the petition is barred by delay and latches. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also carefully gone through the pleadings as well as the documents appended with the petition. It is settled law that pension is not a bounty but hard earned property of an employee. This Court is of the considered view that family pension also has to be construed in the same manner. It is not in dispute that after the death of the father of the petitioner, her mother continued to receive family pension till she also passed away in the year 2001. It is further not in dispute that at the relevant time the petitioner was not entitled to family pension because an unmarried daughter, as the petitioner is, became entitled for grant of family pension only after the coming into force office memorandum dated 14.10.2009, in terms whereof, unmarried daughter was included in the category of persons entitled for family pension upto to the date of first marriage or till the date she started earning or upto the date of death which ever is earliest. 5. Incidentally in the present case the claim of the petitioner has not been resisted by respondent No. 2 either on the ground that the petitioner subsequently has contracted marriage or that she has started earning. That being the case, this Court is of the considered view, that the claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension cannot be denied to her on the grounds as have been taken by respondent No. 2 in the reply. This Court is of the considered view that after coming into force office memorandum Annexure P-1 which was on the subject Revision of provisions regulating pension/gratuity/computation of pension/family pension, onus was caste upon respondent No. 2 to have had identified as to how many successor in interest of the deceased employees of respondent No. 2, were now eligible for grant of family pension and thereafter, further exercise ought to have been undertaken by respondent No. 2 to ensure that such incumbents received family pension. 6. Here rather than doing this, the right of the petitioner is being frustrated on the ground that the petitioner has been sleeping over her rights from the year 2009 and she has woken up from slumber only in the year 2017. 6. Here rather than doing this, the right of the petitioner is being frustrated on the ground that the petitioner has been sleeping over her rights from the year 2009 and she has woken up from slumber only in the year 2017. Otherwise also, the right to receive pension/family pension being a recurring right, there cannot be anything like delays and latches etc. as far as claim of such a right is concerned and therefore the ground on which respondent No. 2 is refusing grant of pension in favour of the petitioner, including the ground that the documents of her late father has stand weeded out, are no grounds for denying pension to the petitioner. This is more so for the reason that it is not the case of respondent No. 2 that the claim of the petitioner is a false claim and her father neither served the respondent/Vidhan Sabha as alleged nor he received pension after his superannuation nor his widow received family pension after his death. It is pertinent to mention here that applicability of office memorandum dated 14.10.2009 upon respondent No. 2 has not been disputed in the course of arguments by the said respondent. 7. Accordingly, in view of the above observations this writ petition is allowed. Petitioner is held entitled for the grant of family pension as from the date office memorandum dated 14.10.2009 came into force. Respondent No. 2 is directed to ensure that all the formalities qua the payment of family pension in favour of the petitioner are complied with on or before 30.11.2022 and regular family pension is released in favour of the petitioner from the month of December 2022, prospectively and the arrears as from the date the petitioner became entitled for the grant of family pension are paid within a period of three months from today. In case of any delay in the payment of arrears as from three months from today then the petitioner will also entitled for simple interest @ 6 p.m. Pending applications, if any, also stands disposed of.