JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is the widow of late Shri Atma Ram who was working as a driver in the Pioneer Corps in the Abhilekh Karyalaya of the Indian Army. Her husband was discharged from service of the Corps on 5th September, 1965. The petitioner has claimed family pension. She married late Atma Ram on 21st November, 1970 and her husband expired on 8th November, 1988 and the petitioner is claiming family pension for the service rendered by her husband. 2. The respondents have taken the stand that the petitioner married late Atma Ram after a period of five years from discharge from service. Petitioner's husband had been discharged from service on 5th September, 1965 and the marriage was solemnised on 21st November, 1970 i.e. after a period of more than five years and, therefore, in view of the contents of the letter dated 2nd June, 1989, issued by the Ministry of Defence on 2nd June, 1989, under the signatures of Director (PENS) she is not entitled to the grant of ordinary family pension. Shri U.D. Sharma, appearing on behalf of the Union of India has pointed out that prior to the issuance of this letter dated 2nd June, 1989, any marriage solemnised after the discharge from service was not at all recognised under the Army Instruction No. 51 of 1980 and it is only from the date of issue of this letter dated 2nd June, 1989 that the marriage has been recognised for the purpose of family pension even after the discharge from service subject to the limitation that the marriage should be performed either within five years from the date of retirement or before attaining the age of 45 years, whichever is earlier, As per the letter dated 25th July, 1989. the petitioner's claim for ordinary family pension has been rejected by the pension sanctioning authorities on the ground that she married on 21st November, 1970 i.e. after her husband's discharge from service beyond the limit of five years and that this is a qualification for grant of ordinary family pension and she was not eligible for the same under the existing rules. 3. 3. The Supreme Cour in its judgment reported as Bhagwati v. Union of India (AIR 1989 SC 2188) has considered the valimty of Rule 54 (14) (b) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 and observed as under "Pension is payable on the consideration of past service rendered by the Government servant. Pay ability of the family pension is basically on the self-same consideration. Since pension is linked with past service and the avowed purpose of the Pension Rules is to provide subsistence in old age, distinction between marriage during service and marriage after retirement appears to be indeed arbitrary. Thus, there is no justification to keep post-retirement marriage out of the purview of the definition of the term "family" in R. 54 (14) (b) of the Rules." 4. Once it has been held that denial of family pension on the ground of marriage solemnised after retirement is unconstitutional, it is immaterial whether the marriage has been performed after discharge from service within a period of five years or thereafter. I find that the embargo of five years as imposed on the letter dated 2nd June, 1989 (Annexure R/1) placed on record with the reply filed on behalf of the respondent is equally unconstitutional and violative of Article 14 as well as Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Here is a case in which the petitioner's husband has served the Indian Army. If the marriage is performed within five years or thereafter is a question which is not at all germane to the right of a widow claiming family pension and there appears to be no rational for denying the pension in case the marriage is performed after a period of five years from the date of discharge from service. Thus, the plea on behalf of the respondents for denying the pension is not sustainable. As such, the reasons for denial of pension do not advance the objects sought to be achieved, as the date of marriage after discharge has no relevance with the widowhood. Once it was contemplated that the family pension should be made available to the widows no discrimination can be made between the widows with reference to the date of their marriage. Once it was contemplated that the family pension should be made available to the widows no discrimination can be made between the widows with reference to the date of their marriage. A lady marrying a discharged Army Officer within five years of the date of discharge and rendered widow has to be treated at par with the lady marrying after five years of the date of discharge and rendered widow. There appears to be no justification to fix the ceiling that in case the marriage is performed within five years the family pension will be paid to the widow and if the marriage is performed after five years, the family pension will be denied to the widow of a discharged Army Officers. In this view of the matter, it is held that the benefits of family pensions which is actually a part of beneficial scheme meant for the widows of discharged Army Officers cannot be denied with reference to the point of time of the marriage. 5. I accordingly allow this writ petition, quash and set aside the order Annexure/3 and direct that ordinary family pension be paid to the petitioner from the date it became due to her and the same may be paid in future. The ground that she had married after a period of five years from the date of her husband's discharge from service will be no impediment in the payment of family pension to her. 6. The above direction be complied with within a period of three months from the date the copy of the judgment is made available to the concerned authorities. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. 7. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******