JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Additional Advocate General and learned counsel for the non-petitioner at sufficient length. 2. On 23.1.1991, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1272 of 88 Laxmi Devi v. State of Raj . was allowed by the Court and direction was given to the respondents to make payment of pension to the petitioner under Chapter XXXIII A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. In its order dated 23.1.1991, the Court had noted that Hon'ble the Chief Justice had treated a letter written by the petitioner as a writ petition. The Court had also noted that the petitioner had attained the age of 76 years at that time. 3. After about 5 months of the passing of the order dated 23.1.1991, the petitioner filed this review petition alleging therein that the petitioner Mst. Laxmi Devi has concealed material facts from the Court and has succeeded in persuading the Court to pass an order in her favour although she was already a recipient of a pension. The impression which was given in the review petition was that the petitioner Mst. Laxmi Devi was receiving pension from Madhya Pradesh Government, for the same period of service for which is claiming pension from the Government of Rajasthan. An application for condonation of delay had also been filed alongwith the review petition. 4. On 28.2.1992, counsel appearing for the State produced some file before the Court showing that the petitioner- Mst. Laxmi Devi was in receipt of pension from the M.P. Government. On the basis of record produced before the Court, the review petition was admitted and operation of the order dated 23.1.1991 was stayed. 5. In reply to review petition, the writ petitioner-Mst. Laxmi Devi stated that she is not in receipt of pension from the M.P. Government, instead, she is getting pension from the Central Government for service rendered by her husband as an ex-constable of Central India Agency Police, Indore and the amount of pension which is being paid to her is Rs. 60/- per month. She had produced Annxs. R/1, R/2 and R/3 in support of her assertion that she is not in receipt of pension from the Madhya Pradesh Government but pension is being paid out of Central funds. 6. No counter to this reply of the review petition has been filed by the petitioner State Government. 7. The only argument advanced by Shri Bhandari, learned Addl. R/1, R/2 and R/3 in support of her assertion that she is not in receipt of pension from the Madhya Pradesh Government but pension is being paid out of Central funds. 6. No counter to this reply of the review petition has been filed by the petitioner State Government. 7. The only argument advanced by Shri Bhandari, learned Addl. Advocate General is that under the Rajasthan Service Rules, a pensioner cannot receive double pension. By making reference to R. 268A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, Shri Bhandari argued that family of a Government servant can get family pension if he/she is not in receipt of any other family pension. Shri Bhandari has produced copies of some letters which are nothing more than intra-department correspondence.-Shri Jain, learned counsel for the non petitioner-Mst. Laxmi Devi admitted factum of receipt of pension by the writ petitioner against the service rendered by her husband as ex-Constable in Central India Agency Police, Indore but he asserted that pension received by the petitioner from the Central Government cannot in any manner be construed as a bar to her right to claim pension under R. 268A of the Rules of 1951 and other provisions of Chapter XXXIII A of the Rules. 8. A close lock at the various documents which Shri Bhandari has today produced before this Court show that the Finance Department of the Government and the Directorate of Pension have made it clear that a Government servant cannot get double family pension. 9. Shri Bhandari also placed reliance on r. 253 of the Rajasthan Service Rules and argued that if two different periods of service are there, they can at the best be joined but two separate pensionary benefits cannot be claimed by a Government servant or his family. 10. I have given my serious and anxious consideration to submissions of learned counsel and find no substance whatsoever in them. A bare look at the documents show that husband of the writ petitioner Mst. Laxmi Devi had served Central India Agency Police, Indore before joining State Service and only for that period of service, the Central Government was paying some pension to Shri Bhagwan Sahai Saxena, late husband of writ petitioner. Shri Bhagwan Sahai Saxena had joined service of Government of Rajasthan in 1949 and he had served up to 1964 in the Railway Police. Shri Bhagwan Sahai Saxena had joined service of Government of Rajasthan in 1949 and he had served up to 1964 in the Railway Police. The pension which has been ordered-to be paid by this Court to him by order dated 23.1.1991 is confined to period of service rendered by late Bhagwan Sahai Saxena between 1949 to 1964. It has absolutely nothing to do with his past service as member of Central India Agency Police. Chapter XXXIII-A of the Rajasthan Service Rules and particularly R 268-A specify certain category of employee whose families are not entitled to pension. None of these exceptions cover the petitioner's case. Husband of the petitioner had died after 1964 and under R 268-A his family is entitled to family pension. Rule 352 relates to cases of an employees who had served the Government of Rajasthan for two different periods. Neither this Rule nor any provision of the Rajasthan Service Rules has got anything to do with the employee who has served at one point of time under the Government of India or some other Government and is receiving pension for that service from that Government and who claims pensionary benefits for the service which he has subsequently rendered under the Government of Rajasthan. It hardly need any emphasis but still I want to emphasise that the Government of Rajasthan or Governor of Rajasthan has no jurisdiction to frame Rules to regulate recruitment and service conditions of persons employed in service of the State other than the State of Rajasthan. Jurisdiction under Art. 309 of the Constitution cannot be exercised by Governor of a State for framing rules regulating the conditions of service of employees of other States or for that matter the Government of India. Exclusive jurisdiction to frame, enact and effect rules regulating recruitment and other service conditions of the employees of the Central Government vests with the President of India and for the service rendered by the petitioner in Central India Agency Police, Indore, competent authority is the Government of India for payment of pension etc. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner is receiving family pension in lieu of service rendered by her husband Bhagwan Sahai Saxena as Ex-Head-Constable of Central Agency Police, Indore cannot be a ground for denying her family pension for the service rendered by her husband as a member of Rajasthan Police Force (Railway) between 1949 to 1964. 11. Therefore, the mere fact that the petitioner is receiving family pension in lieu of service rendered by her husband Bhagwan Sahai Saxena as Ex-Head-Constable of Central Agency Police, Indore cannot be a ground for denying her family pension for the service rendered by her husband as a member of Rajasthan Police Force (Railway) between 1949 to 1964. 11. In my considered view, the review petition is wholly without substance. I would like to add that I would not have admitted the review petition and stayed the order dated 23.1.1991 but for the mis-leading statement made in the review petition that the petitioner is in receipt of family pension from Madhya Pradesh Government for the same period of service for which she has been awarded pension by order of this Court. It is indeed unfortunate that present review petition was drafted in such a manner so as to mislead the Court and record was also produced with sole object of misleading the Court. On account of fact that the Court was mislead, in admitting the review petition and passing an interim order in favour of the review-petitioner, which had led to a situation where an old lady who is almost 80 years of age has been deprived of pensionary benefits, I have no option but to award cost to the original writ petitioner for this review petition. She shall get cost of Rs. 2,000/-. It is also ordered that for the delayed payment of the pensionary benefits which could otherwise been received by the writ petitioners under the order of the Court dated 23.1.1991, she shall get interest at the rate of 12 percent per annum with effect from 23.1.1991. It is also - made clear that the entire amount of pension payable to the writ petitioner. Mst. Laxmi Devi under the order of this Court dated 23.1.1991 must be made to her within a period of 6 weeks from the date of submission of copy of this order, failing which a further interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum shall be chargeable on the said amount of interest with effect from today. This amount of interest shall have to be recovered by the Government from the salary of that Officer who is responsible for non-compliance of today's order. 12. This amount of interest shall have to be recovered by the Government from the salary of that Officer who is responsible for non-compliance of today's order. 12. Registry of this Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the Director of Treasury and Accounts.Review Petition Dismissed *******