never brought into work charge establishment and had held that in such background, the prayer for directing the respondents to pay family pension and other post retiral benefits was not tenable and further, such prayer was rejected and the writ application was dismissed on such point. The fact that liberty was given to represent before the authorities, thus, was only a window given to the petitioner to approach the authority and then it was for the authority to pass appropriate order. However, the Court after considering such plea and also noticing the policy of the State Government had still proceeded to dismiss the writ petition with regard to treating the service of the husband of the petitioner to be in the work charge establishment and then to pay family pension to her. Thus, in the considered opinion of the Court, such prayer was limited only to moving before the authorities i.e., on the departmental side, but the same would not be a cause of action to generate further litigation before this Court by again coming for the same very relief based on the same grounds. If, at all, the petitioner wanted to maintain her right to move on the judicial side, she was required to have moved either for review or in appeal against the order by which the writ petition was rejected on the basis of her claim that after five years the husband of the petitioner was to be brought into
