JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who is a widow of Late Shri Sumer Mal who was an employee of Public Health and Engineering Department, Revenue Construction, Sub-Division-I Jodhpur (respondent No.3) has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India alleging violation of fundamental under Arts. 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India on account of denial of family pension and has prayed fur consequential relief directing the respondents to make payment of arrears of pension due to her Late husband from the date of retirement till death alter adjusting the P.F. amount already drawn by him with a further direction to the respondents to make payment to the petitioner the family pension w.e.f. June, 1989 with all arrears. The petitioner has further sought a direction for payment of compensation to her to the time of Rs. 25000/- on account of late payment of arrears of pension due to her Late husband. 2. The facts giving rise to the filing of this writ petition briefly stated, are that the Late husband of the petitioner was employed in the Erst-while State of Jodhpur before its merger with the State of Rajasthan and was a member of Contributory Provident Fund Scheme. It has been further stated in the writ petition that on formation of State of Rajasthan, the husband of the petitioner was absorbed in the service of Public Health and Engineering Department (far short `P.H.E.D.') of the State of Rajasthan. On 9-7-1968 late husband of the petitioner had retired as L.D.C. from the said department after having rendered I8 years of qualifying service from the office of respondent No. 3 viz. Assistant Engineer, P.H.E.D., Jodhpur. Although P.F. dues were paid to the late husband of the petitioner in his lifetime but the pension and its arrears were not raid to him. Subsequently the rate of pension was revised from time lo time and in order to claim pension. the retired Contributory Provident Fund Holders Association of Jodhpur filed a writ petition in this Court claiming pensionary benefits. The said writ petition being S.B. C.W.P. No. 900/84, was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide order, dated 3-9-1985' which was confirmed by learned Division Bench of this Court and S.L.P. preferred before Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said judgment was also rejected. 3. The said writ petition being S.B. C.W.P. No. 900/84, was allowed by learned Single Judge of this Court vide order, dated 3-9-1985' which was confirmed by learned Division Bench of this Court and S.L.P. preferred before Hon'ble Supreme Court against the said judgment was also rejected. 3. It has been further contend by the petitioner that in view of the judgment of this Court. an option was given to the husband of the petitioner for pension, who, in turn submitted the Sallie before the due date duly verified by the Executive Engineer, P.H.F.D., Jodhpur. The option of the petitioner's husband was duly forwarded to the Director, Pension Department (respondent No.2) vide letter, dated 21st June, 1988 and thereafter repeated reminders were also sent to the said department on 20th September, 1988 and 12-5-1989. Notwithstanding this, the petitioner's husband was not given any amount on account of pension. 4. On 29-5-1989 without getting any relief either on account of pension or arrears of pension. the husband of the petitioner died and intimation to this effect was conveyed by the petitioner to respondent No. 3 on 14-6-1989. The petitioner has placed on record the copies of the representations/reminders as referred to above and also the copy of the death certificate of the petitioners husband vide annexures 1-3. It has been further contended by the petitioner that alter the demise of Shri Sumner Mal, the petitioner being the widow of the deceased became entitled to get family pension in accordance with the provisions of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 1951"). It has been further contended in the petition that other persons who were the members of Jodhpur Provident Fund Contributory Association have already been given the benefit of pension in pursuance of the aforesaid judgment of this Court, while the sane benefit has not been extended to the petitioner and the petitioner has also not been paid any arrears on account of pension, hence the petitioner is entitled to get the arrears of pension due to her Late husband Shri Sumer Mal upto the date of his death and thereafter she has become entitled to get family pension. After having not received any intimation from the department despite earlier representations and reminders, the petitioner was left with no option but to send a notice of demand for justice to the respondents on 7-12-1993 vide Annexure 4 and since she did not get any reply even in the said notice, the petitioner was constrained to file the present writ petition in this Court on 4-4-1994. 5. In reply to the show cause notice respondent No. 3 has taken the stand that the said respondent has not to do much except to forward the case of the deceased employee to the concerned department regarding orders for pension and this duty was discharged by the said respondent long back vide letter, dated 21-6-1988 to the pension department. a copy of which has been filed with the writ petition vide Annexure land that pension was disallowed by the office of respondent No. 2. i.e., the Director, Pension Department. Government of Rajasthan, Jaipur vide Annexure R. 1 dated 1-6-1990, perusal of which reveals that those work-charge employees of the Erstwhile State of Jodhpur who were work-charge employees shall not be entitled to benefit of pension and accordingly the case of the petitioner was not considered or grant of pensionary benefits. 6. No reply has however, been filed by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. It has been contended by respondent NO. 3 in the reply that the order of pension is to he issued by the Pension Department and there being no delay on the part of respondent in forwarding the pension case of the petitioner, respondent No. 3 has no more duty to perform as it is it formal party. The said respondent at the same time has admitted the nonpayment of pension/family pension to the petitioner on the ground that no intimation has been received by the said respondent from the Pension Department and that there is no option left with the said respondent to do much in the matter. It has been further contended by respondent No. 3 "In view of the aforesaid submission, it is clear that the relief to the petitioner hinges on the reply of respondent Nos. It has been further contended by respondent No. 3 "In view of the aforesaid submission, it is clear that the relief to the petitioner hinges on the reply of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the Writ petition and respondent No. 3 has not to do anything in the matter except to forward the case of pension, which duty has already been discharged by respondent No. 3 long back and he is a formal party in the case." 7. Inspite of service on respondent Nos. 1 and 2 no reply has been filed on their behalf except the repay filed by respondent No. 3. as referred to above, and the perusal of the order-sheer clearly reveals that tin 9-5-1994 learned Deputy Government Advocate for the State had sought time to back submission before this Court as to why the pension case has not been finalised in spite of loss of so much little. The matter was accordingly adjourned to 23-51994 w till it specific direction that the State should positively conic up with reply. Inspire of above direction no reply was filed and accordingly on 25-5-1994 the writ petition was admitted and the case was fixed for final hearing at orders stage on 13-7-1994. Accordingly the matter was finally heard by this Court on 14-2-1995 when the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties were heard and concluded. 8. During the course of hearing it has been contended by Shri M. S. Singhvi. learned counsel or the petitioner. that in view of the lodgment of this Court in the matter of Retired Contributory Provident Fund Holders Association Jodhpur v. State of Rajasthan, S.B.C.W.P. No. 900/84 decided on 3-9-1995 reported in 1996 Raj LW 42 . The Late husband of the petitioner had exercised his option for pension which was duly submitted with Pension Department before the due date duly verified by the Executive Engineer. P.H.E.D., Jodhpur (respondent No. 3) in terms of' the judgment, as referred to above. The Late husband of the petitioner had exercised his option for pension which was duly submitted with Pension Department before the due date duly verified by the Executive Engineer. P.H.E.D., Jodhpur (respondent No. 3) in terms of' the judgment, as referred to above. It has been further contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the option of the petitioner's husband was duly forwarded to the Director, Pension Department, Government of Rajasthan vide letter, dated 21-6-1988 and thereafter repeated reminders were sent to the department on 20-9-1998 and 12-5-1989 and despite completion of all the necessary formalities, the petitioner was not given any pension/family pension as admissible in accordance with the Rules, hence the impugned action of the respondent in denial of pension/family pension to the petitioner is contrary to the provisions of the Rules of 1951 and it has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's husband was entitled to pension soon after the completion of qualifying service with the respondent and that the impugned act on of the respondents in not making the payment of pension to the Late husband of the petitioner including, family pension to the petitioner is therefore, illegal as being contrary to Rules of 1951. The petitioner has accordingly prayed for payment of pension due to the husband of the petitioner after adjusting the P.F. dues already drawn by hint as also the family pension to the petitioner from the date her husband expired. i.e., w.e.f. June 1989 alongwith interest at the rate of Rs. 24% per annum from the (late the amount became due rill the date of payment. Reliance has also been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of, this Court in the matter of Ismail Khan v. State of Rajasthan, reported in 1986 (1) W.L.N. 59 and has contended that the facts of the present case and the question of law which has been raised in this writ petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid decision of this Court. 9. The aforesaid content inns have been controverted by Shri G. K. Vyas, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and he has placed reliance upon the contentions advanced by hint in terms of the reply filed in answer to show cause notice issued by this Court, discussion of which has already been made in this order. 10. 9. The aforesaid content inns have been controverted by Shri G. K. Vyas, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and he has placed reliance upon the contentions advanced by hint in terms of the reply filed in answer to show cause notice issued by this Court, discussion of which has already been made in this order. 10. In Ismail Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 1986 (1) WLN 59 (supra) this Court while dealing with it similar case had the occasion to interpret the Rules 179 and I80 of the Rules of 1951. It was held by this Court that the pensionary rights given to the pensioners are the fundamental rights and are arising out of the employment and its condition which is to he fulfilled by the employer. It was further held by this Court that Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution are fundamental rights and preamble of the Constitution provides lot social justice. Everyone knows that the wage earners and salary earners cannot save much. if they act as it devoted and faithful employee without the expectation from anyone else other than the employer.It was further held by this Court that the pension which it Government servant will get or earn and other consequential benefits are given only for the purpose and with intention that there should be no grievance to an employee during the terns of his employment and this basic need of the employee should be looked into by the employer after the said employment retires from service and when he becomes physically unfit. It was held by this Court that pensionary rights are the fundamental rights given to the pensioners and are arising out of the employment and its condition which is to he fulfilled by employer. 11. In Smt. Amina v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ petition No. 5792/90 decided on 30-1-1995 while dealing with it case of a widow who was denied Family pension for continuously long spell of lime. this Court directed the respondents to release family pension to the widow of the deceased Government servant on the due period with all consequential benefits with interest at the rate of Rs. this Court directed the respondents to release family pension to the widow of the deceased Government servant on the due period with all consequential benefits with interest at the rate of Rs. 12% per annum, since the petitioners husband had rendered continuous qualifying service of 14 years 7 months and 8 days which is more than the statutory period of qualifying service of 10 years for entitlement to pension and other consequential benefits which are admissible to an employment his retirement from any Government department and that this was a case of extreme hardship to the petitioner, following the ratio , laid down by the Apex Court in he platter of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, reported in (1983) 47 Fac IR 42 : 1983 Lab IC I and the ratio of other Decisions of this Court as referred to above, including the judgment of this Court in the matter of Jagat Prasad Rai Bhatnagar v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 43/90 decided on 2-2-1995 I am of the considered opinion that the petitioner deserves to succeed and the impugned action of the respondents in not making payment of pension to the husband of the petitioner including family pension to the petitioner being widow of the deceased Government servant is totally unjust, arbitrary and unconstitutional. 12. As a result of the above discussions, this writ petition is allowed with costs which are quantified at Rs. 5000/-. It is further directed that the respondents shall pay the entire amount of arrears of pension as admissible to the husband of the petitioner from the date of his retirement having completed the qualifying service on 9-7-1968. The respondents are further directed to pay the arrears of family pension to the petitioner, being widow of the deceased Govt. servant w.e.f. 21-6-1988 when the option was exercised by the husband of the petitioner for faultily pension. It is further directed that the entire amount of arrears of pension due to the husband of the petitioner after adjusting the P.F. already drawn by him it, also the family pension admissible to the petitioner from the date the option was exercised for family pension. i.e.. It is further directed that the entire amount of arrears of pension due to the husband of the petitioner after adjusting the P.F. already drawn by him it, also the family pension admissible to the petitioner from the date the option was exercised for family pension. i.e.. 21-6-1998 shall he paid to the petitioner alongwiih interest @ 12% per annum from the due till file date of actual payment and that the entire amount shall be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. The amount shall be paid to the petitioner by a Bank Draft at the residential address of the petitioner as indicated in the writ petition.Petition allowed. *******