ORDER : 1. This Writ Petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is filed seeking the following relief: “…to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of mandamus by declaring illegal actions of the respondents No. 2 to 6 in issuing legal heir certificate/family member certificate dated 04-10-2010 to 7th respondent, by ignoring the petitioners as nominee 1 st wife in service record is totally illegal, arbitrary, unjust, discriminatory, unreasonable, without jurisdiction and opposed to public policy and also violative of principles of natural justice apart from the fundamental /property rights guaranteed under Article 14, 16, 21, 300A of constitution of India and set aside said certificate dated 04-10-2010 and issue consequential direction to a) dispose the application/representation dated 10-06-2013 made by the petitioner, b) not to issue any Revenue Records of Rights, Pass Books, Pahani in respect of Sy. No. 28/3, 312/3, 324/3, 324, 327, 329, 330/2, 331, 332, 338/2, 352/C, 58/3 total extent Ac. 15-24 Gts, situated at Katkoor Village, without conducting enquiry, c) further direct the 5 th and 6 th respondents to pay the pension to the petitioner alone in view of 7 th respondents’ appointment on compassionate grounds and to pass…” 2. Heard Sri K.M. Mahender Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services-I appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 6, and Sri Kongala Mohan Goud, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.7. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on 26.11.1987, the petitioner got married to one Gillela Raji reddy, who worked as a Bore Pump Mechanic in the respondent Department at Husnabasd, and both of them led a happy marital life, without issues. However, due to harassment by her husband, she started living separately, and later, filed O.S.No.361 of 1996 before the Principal District Munsiff Court, Karimnagar, seeking maintenance of Rs.600/- per month, which was awarded vide decree dated 12.12.1997, and subsequently, it was enhanced to Rs.1,800/- per month as per the compromise terms in O.S.No.19 of 2004. Thereafter, she received the said maintenance amount until the demise of her husband on 05.07.2010. It was further submitted that during her husband’s lifetime, the petitioner came to know that he got married to respondent No.7, without her consent, while her marriage was still in subsistence. Thereafter, she received the said maintenance amount until the demise of her husband on 05.07.2010. It was further submitted that during her husband’s lifetime, the petitioner came to know that he got married to respondent No.7, without her consent, while her marriage was still in subsistence. Thereafter, her husband brought pressure on her and got her into compromise that, being a Government employee, he shall look after her wellbeing by providing her all necessities. However, to her misfortune, her husband had passed away on 05.07.2010, leaving behind herself, her in-laws and the two illegitimate sons through respondent No.7. 4. It was further submitted that after her husband’s death, the petitioner applied for legal heir certificate before the Tahsildar, Bheemadevarapally Mandal, but the same was not granted to her. However, a Family Member Certificate dated 04.10.2010 was issued to respondent No.7, without any notice to the petitioner, and surprisingly, basing on the said certificate, respondent No.7 was appointed as Helper/Attender on compassionate grounds in the Veterinary Department, and had also drawn the service benefits of the petitioner’s husband. Further, respondent No.7 also took the possession of the agricultural land admeasuring an extent of Acs.15-24 gts., and a house situated at Katkoor Village, Bheemadevarapally Mandal, denying her share as per law. Thereafter, the petitioner has made a representation to respondent Nos.2 to 4 on 10.06.2013, requesting not to mutate the lands of her husband in favour of any third parties and to take appropriate action against respondent No.7 in illegally obtaining the Family Member Certificate, without notice to the petitioner and to do justice by issuing the Legal Heir Certificate in favour of the petitioner. However, no action has been taken thereon so far. 5. It was further submitted that while things stood thus, respondent No.7 has also filed O.S.No.352 of 2014 before the Additional Junior Civil Judge at Husnabad, against the petitioner for declaring respondent No.7 as the legally wedded wife of the deceased, and the said suit is still pending. It was further contended that respondent No.7 got all the death benefits under the guise of family member certificate dated 04.10.2010, and is drawing pension apart from the compassionate employment as Helper/Attender in the Veterinary Department at Veterinary Hospital, Potharam (S) Village. In fact, the petitioner herein is the legally wedded first wife and is legally entitled to receive pension and other benefits. In fact, the petitioner herein is the legally wedded first wife and is legally entitled to receive pension and other benefits. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioner prayed this Court to pass necessary orders in the present writ petition. 6. Per contra, learned Government Pleader for respondents submitted that late Gillela Raji Reddy was appointed as work charged employee on 09.07.1991 in Executive Engineer Wing, Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department, Karimnagar Division, and his services were regularized on 09.07.1996, and was appointed as a Bore Pump Mechanic in the same Division in the year 1998. Subsequently, the Panchayat Raj and Rural Development Department was bifurcated as Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department, and he was allotted to the said Department where he worked as a Pump Mechanic at Husnabad, Siddipet (erstwhile Karimnagar District), till his demise. It was further submitted that after the demise of Mr. Gillela Raji Reddy on 05.07.2010, respondent No.7 applied for legal heir certificate and family member certificate before respondent No.4, after the execution of a Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.09.2010, with the petitioner herein, whereby, the petitioner had received an amount of Rs.4,50,000/- from respondent No.7 and agreed that respondent No.7 is the nominee of the deceased. As such, respondent No.4 issued the legal heir certificate and family member certificate dated 04.10.2010 to respondent No.7, on the basis of which, respondent No.7 was rightly appointed as Office Subordinate in the Veterinary Department on compassionate grounds in the year 2011. However, only after a lapse of almost two years, the petitioner submitted her representation to the authorities for the issuance of legal heir certificate and family member certificate in favour of the petitioner, and also approached this Court after a long lapse of eight years. Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 7. Learned counsel for respondent No.7 submitted that the deceased husband of respondent No.7, late Gillela Raji Reddy, married her in 1994 and they were blessed with two children, Shiva Reddy and Manjunath Reddy. During his lifetime, the deceased husband worked in the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department as a Bore Pump Mechanic, until he passed away on 05.07.2010, due to cancer. During his lifetime, the deceased husband worked in the Rural Water Supply and Sanitation Department as a Bore Pump Mechanic, until he passed away on 05.07.2010, due to cancer. However, only after two months of his demise, respondent No.7 had come to know about the petitioner, that too, when the petitioner held a panchayat before the village elders, wherein, both side villagers instructed the petitioner not to cause any hardship, as the children of respondent No.7 are just 8 and 10 years old, respectively. Further, respondent No.7 enquired the parents-in- law and other village and community elders about the petitioner, and only then, she came to know that the petitioner herein is a distant relative of husband of respondent No.7 and when her husband was eight years old and the petitioner was six, the elders performed child marriage (bommala pelli). Thereafter, the petitioner herein had been suffering with ill-health, and thus, the deceased was instructed to leave her. Subsequently, after several years of the deceased obtaining a job, respondent No.7 was married to him, and both of them led a happy marital life till his demise in the year 2010. 8. It was further submitted that even though the petitioner was not the legally-wedded wife of the deceased, as her marriage was performed at the age of six years, respondent No.7 has paid her an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, and duly acknowledging the same, the petitioner entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.09.2010, and also submitted no-objection affidavit to the respondent authorities for providing compassionate appointment and other benefits to respondent No.7 and her children. However, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition by suppressing all these facts. It was further submitted that when the petitioner raised false claims again in 2013, respondent No.7 has filed a declaration suit before the Additional Junior Civil Judge vide O.S.No.352 of 2014, wherein, the petitioner had filed a written statement, but due to some internal miscommunication between the counsel, the said suit was dismissed for default in the year 2018. It was once again contended that the petitioner, having already received an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, is now making false claims without having any legal rights, only to harass respondent No.7. Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 9. It was once again contended that the petitioner, having already received an amount of Rs.4,50,000/-, is now making false claims without having any legal rights, only to harass respondent No.7. Therefore, it was prayed to dismiss the present writ petition. 9. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respective parties, it is evident that one late Gillela Raji Reddy, who worked as a Bore Pump Mechanic in the respondent Department had passed away on 05.07.2010. The petitioner herein claims to be the wife of the deceased and claims the death benefits and all other benefits, while respondent No.7 vehemently contends that she herself is the legally wedded wife of the petitioner and is rightfully enjoying the benefits. It is evident from the record that after his demise, both the petitioner and respondent No.7 executed a Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.09.2010, whereby, the petitioner accepted a settlement amount of Rs.4,50,000/- and acknowledged respondent No.7 as the nominee of the deceased for all benefits. The petitioner had also submitted a no-objection affidavit to the respondent authorities for providing compassionate appointment and other benefits to respondent No.7. It is also evident from the record that on the basis of this Memorandum of Understanding and the no-objection affidavit, respondent No.7 was appointed as Office Subordinate in the Veterinary Department. 10. In this context, it is appropriate to refer to the Memorandum of Understanding dated 29.02.2010, and its relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “That I am not having any relationship with Gillella Raj Reddy said Gillella Raj Reddy died due to ill-health on 05-07-2010 that Smt Gillella Padma and their children are entitled for benefits I am no way connected with benefits and compensate enjoyment.” 11. As such, the above Memorandum of Understanding and the no- objection affidavit indicates a clear waiver of any claim of the petitioner over the service benefits of the deceased. 12. Further, the validity of marriages, allegations of bigamy, and entitlement to succession benefits are all matters requiring evidence, and these involve disputed questions of fact, which cannot be adjudicated under the writ jurisdiction. 13. Furthermore, the instant writ petition was filed more than eight years after the issuance of family member certificate in favour of respondent No.7, and her appointment as Office Subordinate in the Veterinary Department. However, no satisfactory explanation has been provided for this delay. 13. Furthermore, the instant writ petition was filed more than eight years after the issuance of family member certificate in favour of respondent No.7, and her appointment as Office Subordinate in the Veterinary Department. However, no satisfactory explanation has been provided for this delay. Thus, it clearly shows that the petitioner was reluctant to approach this Court in a timely manner. 14. As regards delay in approaching this Court, a Division Bench of this Court, vide judgment dated 13.12.2021 in W.A.Nos.1660 of 2018 and 593 of 2016, has categorically held the delay of 5 to 18 years in preferring a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as inordinate delay. In the present case, since there is an inordinate delay of almost eight years, for which, no valid or cogent reasons are assigned, this Court is not inclined to entertain the present writ petition. 15. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 16. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any, pending in this writ petition, shall stand closed. No costs.