JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner is widow of late Sri Ram Sargara and belongs to Scheduled Caste community. The late husband of the petitioner was employee of the Govt. of Rajasthan. It is said in the petition that the husband of the petitioner died on 27th Feb., 1972. It is further said that before his death in the year 1971 Sri Ram had opted for the grant of pension. 2. After the death of her husband the petitioner has been repeatedly making representations for the grant of family pension. It is also said that payment of salary for the month of November and December, 1971 and January, 1972 and February, 1972 was also not paid to late Sri Ram nor to the petitioner after his death, therefore, salary for this period may also be given to the petitioner. That although Sri Ram had already opted for the pension in the year 1971 but petitioner again submitted her option for the family pension to respondent No.4 and it is placed as Ann.P.4. It is said in the petition that respondent No.5 in spite of the various notices and requests has not responded although the respondent No.4 has already sent papers of the petitioner which was evident from the communication No.1180 dated 16.6.89, a photostat copy of which has been placed as Anne.11. 3. It is said from the side of the respondents that the service record of the deceased was not traceable and the same could be made available from the insurance department and the personal service file of the deceased. It has been brought to my notice by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the petitioner has been able to get hold of the communication dated 22.12.1971 addressed by the Superintendent (Gardens) to the deceased husband of the petitioner as well as to another person and therein it is said that the papers in respect of the option have been sent to the office of the Directorate at Jaipur, that is, respondent No.3. The learned counsel thus proceeds that since the deceased had himself opted for the pension before his death the petitioner consequently is entitled for the same after the death of her late husband. 4. In the written statement the pleas raised in the petition were denied. 5. The learned counsel thus proceeds that since the deceased had himself opted for the pension before his death the petitioner consequently is entitled for the same after the death of her late husband. 4. In the written statement the pleas raised in the petition were denied. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after scanning the record I find that in view of Anne. P.12-A the petitioner has made out a case for the desired relief. The petitioner cannot be denied the just claim for which her late husband had already opted before his death. 6. Consequently, the petition is allowed and a direction is issued to the respondents to expedite the payment of family pension keeping in view Ann. P.12-A. The matter be disposed of as expeditiously as possible preferably within four months from the date of this order. The respondents shall while releasing this family pension shall also keep in view if any other due remain to be paid to the deceased or to the petitioner including the four months salary reference to which has been made in the earlier part of this order. 7. The writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. *******