JUDGMENT : NIRZAR S. DESAI, J. Heard learned advocate Mr. Vishal Thakker for the petitioner and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aakash Gupta for respondents. 2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or such other appropriate writ, thereby quashing and setting aside communication dtd. 08.01.2026 (Ann) and further direct the respondents, to immediately compute and determine the family pension payable to the petitioner as the widow of Late Shri Bhikhubha Prabhatsinh Gohil, in accordance with the applicable rules. (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to fix the family pension in accordance with the pension rules applicable at the time of the death of the petitioner's husband (28.04.1972) or the rules in force at the time of computation, whichever is more beneficial to the petitioner. (C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to pay to the petitioner the full arrears of family pension from the date of death of her husband, being 28.04.1972, till the date of actual payment, along with the pension computed from that date along with interest @ 18% per annum from the 29.04.1972. (D) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to grant the petitioner a monthly family pension as determined, to be paid regularly every month without further delay. (E) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to direct the respondents to process all necessary administrative formalities and complete the grant of family pension as early as possible as the petitioner is a senior citizen. (F) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to grant costs of this petition and such other and further reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the interest of justice.” 3. It is case of the petitioner that the petitioner’s husband namely Bhikhubhai Prabhatsinh Gohil was appointed on a permanent post in the pay scale of Rs. 65-2-70 (Basic Pay plus Incentives) and continued to serve from 08.03.1960 till his death on 28.04.1972. Though the petitioner’s husband died in the year 1972 as stated by learned advocate Mr. Thakker for the petitioner on account of the fact that the petitioner was an illiterate lady she was unaware about her rights and therefore she could not pray for family pension and other terminal benefits. Though the petitioner’s husband died in the year 1972 as stated by learned advocate Mr. Thakker for the petitioner on account of the fact that the petitioner was an illiterate lady she was unaware about her rights and therefore she could not pray for family pension and other terminal benefits. Also considering the fact that the son of the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment she did not agitate the issue about family pension or any other benefits on account of death of her husband until 2010. In the year 2010, the petitioner made a representation by way of notice given through advocate of the petitioner on 03.03.2010. However, there was no response to the aforesaid notice. Thereafter, 6 years thereafter, i.e. in the year 2016, the petitioner preferred Special Civil Application No. 8727 of 2016 before this Court wherein it was the grievance of the petitioner that though the petitioner had made a representation on 03.03.2010, there was no response to the representation about the request of the petitioner of granting pensionary benefits to her on account of her husbands death. The aforesaid petition was heard on 21.11.2025 and the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court while partly allowing the petition issue following directions:- “4. Having heard learned advocates for the respective parties, without much delving into the matter, at this stage, this Court would like to dispose of this petition by passing the following order and observations : (i) The respondents herein are directed to decide the case of the petitioner in turn decide her representation dated 03.03.2010 (Annexure-C), issued through her lawyer, in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (ii) It is also open for the petitioner to file a fresh representation along with any case law whereby the petitioner can impress upon the respondents to take an appropriate decision in the matter. Once such fresh representation is also received from the petitioner, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to consider and decide both the representations within the time stipulated hereinabove and thereby pass an appropriate reasoned order, either accepting or rejecting such representation. Once such fresh representation is also received from the petitioner, respondent Nos.1 and 2 are hereby directed to consider and decide both the representations within the time stipulated hereinabove and thereby pass an appropriate reasoned order, either accepting or rejecting such representation. (iii) At last, it goes without saying that as there is already delay in deciding the case of the petitioner at the end of the respondents, it is expected from the respondents that as per the prevailing law as on date, appropriate decisions shall be taken by the respondents within the stipulated time as aforesaid. (iv) It is made clear that as such, there is a substantial delay in preferring the present petition, at the same time, this Court is not handicapped when the case of the petitioner who is claiming family pension. At the same time, if the respondent State finds the case of the petitioner eligible to receive family pension, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, at the time of paying the arrears of such family pension, the petitioner shall not claim and be entitled to receive any interest thereon. (v) Before parting, it is made clear that this Court has neither gone into nor examined the merits of the matter which requires to be considered by the respondents in accordance with law.” 3.1 Pursuant to above directions, the case of the petitioner was considered by the respondents and on 08.01.2026, a reasoned order was passed whereby the petitioner was denied the benefit of family pension on the ground that the petitioner’s husband was on workcharge establishment and all throughout during his career, he continued to perform his duties as work-charge employee. At the time of his death i.e. on 28.04.1972, he was not a regularly appointed permanent employee on the establishment but remained a work-charge employee and on the date of his death i.e. 28.04.1972, no Government scheme relating to family pension for work-charge employee was in force. First such scheme came into existence only on 08.01.1976 which provided for family pension to an employee who has completed 5 years service on 08.01.1976. According to the respondent, such Government Resolution cannot be made applicable retrospectively and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any family pension. Hence, vide order dated 08.01.2026, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents which is under challenge by way of this petition. 4. According to the respondent, such Government Resolution cannot be made applicable retrospectively and therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any family pension. Hence, vide order dated 08.01.2026, the representation of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents which is under challenge by way of this petition. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Vishal Thakker for the petitioner submitted that considering the fact that the petitioner is 82 years old lady who has lost her husband as back as in the year 1972 as well as considering the fact that the present petitioner is illiterate and unaware about her rights and more particularly about getting family pension and, therefore, there was a delay in preferring a representation/notice for about 38 years and for the first time the same was made only on 03.03.2010. According to learned advocate for the petitioner since the aforesaid representation was not replied, the petitioner preferred a petition in the year 2016 and thereafter vide order dated 21.11.2025, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court partly allowed the petition and directed the respondents to consider the representation made by the petitioner on 03.03.2010. The delay of 38 years in making the representation would not come in the way of the petitioner as the same can be said to have been condoned by the Co-ordinate Bench and therefore considering the fact that the petitioner is 82 years old lady and considering her social background as well as educational background that she is absolutely illiterate and coming from lower strata of the Society, this Court may consider the overall circumstances of the petitioner and direct the respondent to pay the family pension to the petitioner. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Vishal Thakker for the petitioner further submitted that the husband of the petitioner died in the year 1972 and though at the relevant point of time there was no policy for family pension, such policy came into existence w.e.f. 08.01.1976 and therefore considering the nature of family pension which having a benevolent object to ensure that the dependent of the deceased can live a respectful life. Hence, the respondents are required to be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for family pension by making the Government Resolution dated 08.01.1976 applicable retrospectively. It was also disclosed before this Court by learned advocate Mr. Hence, the respondents are required to be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for family pension by making the Government Resolution dated 08.01.1976 applicable retrospectively. It was also disclosed before this Court by learned advocate Mr. Thakker for the petitioner that son of the present petitioner was granted compassionate appointment by the respondents and he also has served the respondents. 4.2 When the Court did not agree with the submissions of learned advocate Mr. Vishal Thakker for the petitioner and this order/judgment was being dictated and when the Court put a specific query to learned advocate Mr. Thakker that any other submissions which learned advocate Mr. Thakker has made, are left to be incorporated in the this judgment? Learned advocate Mr. Thakker said that though there are no submissions, left to be incorporated, he may be granted time to look for some decisions of this Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court which may help the case of the petitioner. Such request was rejected by the Court for the reason that the Court does not want to encourage the practice from the learned advocates to first argue the matter without preparation and then after knowing that the Court is not in favour of the petitioner, to seek time to find judgments and citation and thereby after arguing the matter fully to have second round of argument after knowing that the Court is not inclined to entertain/allow the petition. Hence, such request was out- rightly rejected by this Court and this Court proceeded further to dictate the remaining part of the order. 5. Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aakash Gupta vehemently opposed the petition and submitted that though there was a delay of 38 years in preferring the first representation as the husband of the petitioner died in the year 1972 and the first representation was made only on 03.03.2010. Considering the fact that pursuant to Court order dated 21.11.2025 in Special Civil Application No. 8727 of 2016 which was partly allowed, the respondents objectively considered the representation made by the petitioner. The respondent authorities did not dispute the fact that the husband of the petitioner was working as work-charge watchman however, at the relevant point of time there was no policy for grant of family pension and such policy first time came into force only by way of Government Resolution dated 08.01.1976. 5.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. The respondent authorities did not dispute the fact that the husband of the petitioner was working as work-charge watchman however, at the relevant point of time there was no policy for grant of family pension and such policy first time came into force only by way of Government Resolution dated 08.01.1976. 5.1 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Gupta further submitted that since the Government Resolution dated 08.01.1976 was not made applicable retrospective, the petitioner was rightly held not entitled for any family pension and therefore the case of the petitioner was rejected vide decision dated 08.01.2026. Moreover, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered to the settled preposition of law that the Government Resolution would be made applicable from the date of its publication unless it is specifically stated that the said Government Resolution would be made applicable retrospectively. 5.2 Learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Gupta submitted that if the case of the petitioner is considered as an exception then in that case the Government would be flooded with a number of such cases whereby the benefit on the basis of Government Resolution which is made applicable from the date of Government Resolution would be expected to be considered retrospectively in the manner which would suit the petitioner. Therefore, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that even after considering the case of the petitioner sympathetically and objectively in accordance with law, when it was found that the petitioner was not eligible for any family pension, the case of the petitioner was rejected by rejecting the representation dated 03.03.2010 by way of order dated 08.01.2026 which has been done in accordance with law and therefore prayed that this Court may dismiss the petition as no legal right of the petitioner is violated. 6. I have heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. On perusal of record, I have found that though for the first time despite the fact that the husband of the petitioner died in the year 1972, the first representation seeking pensionary benefits was made by the petitioner on 03.03.2010 and since the said representation remained undecided, the petitioner preferred a petition being Special Civil Application No. 8727 of 2016 which was partly allowed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.11.2025 by issuing directions which are already reproduced in the foregoing paragraph. Considering the fact that the representation of the petitioner was directed to be decided by the Co-ordinate Bench and the respondents have already decided the same, even though the representation was made after 38 years after death of husband of the petitioner, I do not propose to dismiss this petition on the ground of delay. However, at the same time the Court is also mindful of the fact that the Government Resolution dated 08.01.1976 even if provides for any pension to any work-charge employee who has completed 5 years of service, the same would be made applicable only from the date of Government Resolution and as the petitioner’s husband had expired 4 years prior to publication of the said Government Resolution, the aforesaid Government Resolution cannot be said to be made applicable to the case of the present petitioner. 7. I am in agreement with the submissions made by learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr. Aakash Gupta that even if the purpose behind such Government Resolution is of benevolent nature however, if the Government Resolution is directed to be considered retrospectively by looking to the circumstances and age of the petitioner, in that case, the same would open a floodgate and everyone who will be of the view that a particular Government Resolution benefiting him/her had it been considered from a retrospective date, in that case there would be a flood of such request which the Government will have to face which may create a chaos in administration. Hence, the submission of learned advocate Mr. Vishal Thakker for the petitioner that the Government Resolution being of benevolent nature and the same may be directed to be considered retrospectively cannot be considered. 8. I do not see any reason to interfere with the reasons stated by the respondent authorities while rejecting the representation of the petitioner vide order dated 08.01.2026. In view of above, the present petition is required to be dismissed and the same is hereby dismissed accordingly.