JUDGMENT 1. - A news item was published in 'Navbharat Times' dated August 25, 1988 that one Smt. Murti Devi, widow of late Omprakash Tiwari, who worked as a Constable in Police Department, died on October 17, 1970. However, Smt. Murti Devi, widow of the deceased, has been running from pillar to post for getting family pension and has been unsuccessful in getting the same, even though, more than 18 years have passed away A notice of this news item was taken by this court and this news item was treated as writ petition and was registered as same. Show-cause notice was issued to the State of Raj and a direction was given that a detailed reply regarding the pension matter of Murti Devi be filed in this Court. A reply was filed on November 29, 1988. in which it has been stated that deceased Omprakash was appointed in Police Department as Constable on September 29, 1938 (Anx. R/1). while on duty, he applied for casual leave for seven days w.e.f. March 6, 1966, which was granted to him. However, he did not join his duties on expiry of the above period of leave and remained under treatment due to sickness of spondylitis. He came on duty on June 9, 1966. but was not found fit for duty and, therefore, he was asked to present himself before the District Medical and Health Officer, Sikar for medical examination, who, after examining him, declared him to be completely unfit for duties and permanently incapacitated for any kind of service in Police Department. In pursuance of this report of Medical Board. Shri Omprakash Tiwari, Constable No. 291 was retired on invalid pension under Rule 228 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, the Rules') w.e.f. June 20, 1966. A copy of the letter dated June 21, 1988 alongwith Medical Certificate issued by DMHO, Sikar, has been filed and marked as Anx. R/2 (A&B). A copy of the order of retirement dated June 22, 1966 has also been filed and marked as Anx. R/3. 2. It is submitted by Mr. L.K. Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, that the respondents came to know about the death of Omprakash only after receipt of notice given under Section 80. CPC. R/2 (A&B). A copy of the order of retirement dated June 22, 1966 has also been filed and marked as Anx. R/3. 2. It is submitted by Mr. L.K. Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate, that the respondents came to know about the death of Omprakash only after receipt of notice given under Section 80. CPC. It is further submitted that case of pension of deceased was prepared and was sent to the Accountant General vide letter dated November 30, 1966 (Anx.R/4), but the same was not cleared and the Accountant General, Rajasthan, informed vide his letter dated December 26, 1966 (Anx R/5) that the deceased was entitled only for DCRG and Service Gratuity. The pension was not admissible to him as he served for less than 10 years. On receiving this information, it is submitted by learned counsel that Retirement Gratuity and Service Gratuity case of Shri Om Prakash Tiwari was prepared and payment of both was sanctioned to Shri Omprakash Tiwari vide letter dated May 26, 1967 (Anx.R/6). The Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu was also informed that deceased was not entitled to any pension, according to law, vide letter dated May 17, 1969 (Anx.R/7). It is further submitted that the Director of Pension, Rajasthan, Jaipur vide his letter dated January 24, 1985 (Anx.R/8) intimated that the deceased was not entitled for family pension, as he did not complete 10 years' service. The Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhnnu vide letter dated November 25, 1987 (Anx. R/9) addressed to the Director, Pension, Rajasthan, requested that ex-gratia grant be given to Smt. Murti Devi, widow of the deceased constable, but the Director. Pension, Rajasthan, vide letter dated December 3, 1987 (Anx.R/10) informed that no ex-gratia grant can be given to the widow of the deceased, since he served in Government service for a period of less than 10 years. It is also submitted that looking to the, condition of the widow of the deceased, three letters dated April 15, 1988, June 10, 1988 and October 31, 1988 (marked Anx. 11, 12 and 13 respectively) were written to the Chief Accounts Officer and others, requesting them to sanction family pension, which can be granted to her. It is also submitted that looking to the, condition of the widow of the deceased, three letters dated April 15, 1988, June 10, 1988 and October 31, 1988 (marked Anx. 11, 12 and 13 respectively) were written to the Chief Accounts Officer and others, requesting them to sanction family pension, which can be granted to her. It is also pointed out that Amended Rules came into force on April 1, 1985, whereas, the husband of the petitioner retired in the year, 1966 and the deceased did not die while on duty in the year, 1970. It is further submitted by the learned Deputy Government Advocate that inspite of that, a sympathetic attitude will be adopted in the matter of appointing son of the deceased in Government service in accordance with law. 3. Mr. G.S. Singhvi, learned counsel, was requested to appear as Amicus Curiae for the petitioner widow of the deceased to assist this Court. 4. Another Petition No. 10/89 was also filed subsequently on behalf of the petitioner Murti Devi, in which it has been prayed that orders dated January 24, 1985, December 10, 1987 and April 25, 1988 may be quashed and all consequential benefits be given to the petitioner-widow of the deceased and she be awarded family pension w.e.f. June 20, 1966, when deceased-Omprakash her husband was retired from Government service. 18% interest has also been claimed on the amount, since the payment of the family pension has not been made, even though, there are Rules for payment of the same. It is further prayed that son of the petitioner Yogesh Kumar be given employment any-where in Rajasthan on compensate grounds. 5. It is submitted by Mr. G.S. Singhvi, learned counsel appearing as Amicus Curiae that the widow of the deceased was fully entitled to receive family pension and the Rules have been wrongly interpreted, which has caused immense harassment to the poor lady, who could get nothing as per pension for nearly 20 years, after the death of her husband. It is also submitted that the deceased was also entitled to get pension, even during his life time, as he retired on the basis of invalid pension under Rule 228 of the Rules. It is also submitted that as per provisions of Chapter XXII of the Rules, in particular Rules 256, 257, 268-A, 268-B and 268-C also, she was entitled to get now family pension. It is also submitted that as per provisions of Chapter XXII of the Rules, in particular Rules 256, 257, 268-A, 268-B and 268-C also, she was entitled to get now family pension. It is submitted by learned counsel that widow of the deceased is uneducated, is not aware of the salary the deceased was drawing at the time of his retirement and the State of Rajasthan has also not given the particulars of the Salary drawn by him at the time of retirement. It is, therefore, submitted that the pension be fixed, keeping in view the salary last drawn by the deceased and be given to the widow w.e.f. the date of retirement. It is also pointed out that the petitioner was also entitled to get pension under Section 228, which was also not paid to the deceased. 6. It is submitted by Mr. Soni, learned counsel, who appears for the petitioner in Petition No. 10/89, that the husband of the petitioner be deemed to have died on duly, since he retired on the basis of invalid pension and his son should be given appointment as is given to those Government servants, who die while on duty. It is also submitted that even though, payment of Retirement Gratuity & Service Gratuity was sanctioned, but the same was not paid to Omprakash. 7. I have heard the parties and also perused the documents on record. 8. It will be necessary to go through certain provisions of the Rules to have clear impact of the same on grant of pension to the petitioner. Section III of the Rules is regarding invalid pension. Rule 228 reads as under:- "228. Condition of grant-An invalid pension is awarded, on bis retirement from the public service, to a Government servant who by bodily or mental infirmity is permanently incapacitated for the public service or for the particular branch of it to which he belongs." A bare reading of the Section shows that a Government servant, who is permanently incapacitated on account of bodily or mental infirmity is entitled to get invalid pension on his such retirement. This section does not state anywhere that in such case also, it is necessary that the Government servant should have put in atleast minimum 10 years of service before he is entitled to be awarded invalid pension on his retirement, under Rule 228 of the Rules. The order (Anx. This section does not state anywhere that in such case also, it is necessary that the Government servant should have put in atleast minimum 10 years of service before he is entitled to be awarded invalid pension on his retirement, under Rule 228 of the Rules. The order (Anx. R/3) dated January 22, 1966 clearly mentions that the deceased was retired on invalid pension under Rule 228 of the Rules w.e.f. June 20, 1966. Therefore, this rule has been evidently wrongly interpreted. Chapter 23-A is regarding new family pension. This became applicable to all Government servants on pensionable establishment whether temporary or permanent, who were in service on March 1, 1964. The petitioner was retired only in the year. 1966 and was in service when this rule was inserted. Rule 268-B is regarding admissibility of pension and lays down that family pension shall be given on the rates specified under Rule 268-C. Rule 268-C is regarding amount of the family pension. The family pension is, therefore, to be computed in accordance with this rule, in which the rates payable to Government servants have been mentioned. Item at S. No. 3 shows that those, who were drawing salary below Rs. 200/-, were entitled to get 30% of the basic, salary subject to a minimum of Rs. 25/- per month. Thus, it can be said that, in any case, the petitioner-widow of the deceased constable was entitled to get at least Rs. 25/- per month from the date 17.10.70 on which the deceased Omprakash died. However, it is within the knowledge of the respondent-State of Rajasthan to see from its record what was the last salary drawn by the deceased, so that the pension may be awarded to her on the basis of last drawn salary, as provided in Section 268-C of the Rules. Thus, it is clear that even Rules under Chapter XXIII of the Rules were completely ignored and the poor lady has been made to run from pillar to post for getting whatever meagre amount of pension, she was entitled to get. Thus, it is clear that even Rules under Chapter XXIII of the Rules were completely ignored and the poor lady has been made to run from pillar to post for getting whatever meagre amount of pension, she was entitled to get. It is also on the record from the reply filed by the State of Rajasthan that no pension was given to the deceased Omprakash after he was retired under Rule 228 of the Rules on the wrong assumption that, since he had not served in Government service for atleast 10 years, he was not entitled to receive any pension, even though, a plain and simple reading of the Rule 228 will show that this is an absolutely wrong and perverse interpretation of the same as it is nowhere mentioned that 10 years service is necessary. Therefore, it is held that the deceased-Omprakash was also entitled to receive invalid pension, according to salary drawn by him under provisions of Rule 228 of the Rules. 9. So far as the contention of Mr. Soni, learned counsel for the petitioner, regarding appointment of son of the deceased in Government service on compensate grounds is concerned it is clear from the facts stated above that the deceased was retired on the basis of invalid pension in the year, 1966 and died in the year, 1970. Therefore, he cannot be said to have died while in Government service. However, the State of Rajasthan in its reply has stated in para 7 that the matter of giving appointment to Yogesh Kumar-son of the deceased Omprakash shall be considered in accordance with prescribed Rules/Act/Provisions/Orders. 10. In the result, the Petition No. 2908/88 is allowed, while Petition No. 10/89 is partly allowed and it is directed that the petitioner Murti Devi, widow of deceased Omprakash, is held to be entitled to receive family pension and she will be given family pension in accordance with Rule 268-C of the Rules w.e.f. 17.10.70 the date on which her husband died within four months from the date of this order. However, in any case, since she is entitled to get pension of atleast at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month, she will be paid this amount w.e.f. 17.10.70 till 31.3.90, which comes to Rs. 5,875/-, within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. However, in any case, since she is entitled to get pension of atleast at the rate of Rs. 25/- per month, she will be paid this amount w.e.f. 17.10.70 till 31.3.90, which comes to Rs. 5,875/-, within a period of six weeks from the date of this order. Since the payment of the family pension has been denied to her for the last 20 years wrongly by perverse interpretation of the Rules, allowing some time required to complete the pension, she will be entitled to get interest at the rate of 12% per annum w.e.f. January 1, 1971, till the amount is paid to her, as directed above. It is also directed that as the deceased Omprakash was also entitled to get invalid pension as per Rule 228 of the Rules, which was wrongly not given to him on account of wrong and perverse interpretation of the relevant provisions, this pension, to which deceased-Omprakash was also entitled, shall also be paid to Smt. Murti Devi his widow w.e.f. June 20, 1966 to October 17, 1970 till he died. This amount shall also be paid to her alongwith 12% interest on the same within a period of four months from the date of this order. So far as the appointment of Yogesh Kumar-son of the deceased Omprakash is concerned, the State Government, as given out in the reply, will consider the matter sympathetically in accordance with prescribed Rules/Acts/Provisions/Orders in this respect. 11. It is also directed that if the amount of Retirement Gratuity & Service Gratuity was not paid to late Omprakash, the same shall be paid to petitioner within four months alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 12. The petitions are allowed, as indicated above. A copy of this order may be given to Mr. L.K. Sharma, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State, for earlier compliance.Petition No. 2908/88 Allowed/ Petition No. 10/89 Partly Allowed. *******