Judgment R. M. Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner in this writ application is the widow of late Ram Vinod Prasad Singh, who retired on 14-7-72 as Headmaster from primary School, Dayalpur within the police station Raja Pakar in the district of Hajipur. She has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ/order or direction commending the respondents to grant family pension to her and also to pay the arrears of the pension due to her husband from 14.7.72 to 15.12.74. 2. The short relevant facts are that the management and control of the school in question were taken over by the State Government with effect from 1.1.71 and all the teachers working were declared to be Government servants vide Bihar Government resolution dated 9.2.73. As already stated above, the husband of the petitioner retired from the said school on 14-7-72 and later died on 15-12-74. It is contended that as the pension of the husband for the period 14th July.72 to 15th December, 74 was not paid and the family pension was not paid to the petitioner, she filed an application (annexure-1)before the District Superintendent of Education, Hajipur (respondent No.3) on 1-12- 93 requesting him to apprise her rebut the steps being taken for payment of the same. The petitioner filed another application before respondent No.3 on 20.12.93 (vide Annexure 2) re-iterating her claim for payment of the dues of pension of her husband as well as family pension to her since after the death of her husband. However, even after making repeated representations when the demand of the petitioner was not fulfilled by the authorities concerned, he filed the present writ application for the aforementioned relief. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar and its officers (Respondent Nos.1 to 4 ). In the said counter affidavit a plea has been taken that the relevant record is not available in the office of Vaishali, because the district Vaishali was not brought into being during the period when the husband of the petitioner retired. However, it is also contended that the writ petitioner is not entitled for family pension in accordance with rules of the department as contained in government letter Nos.1069 dated 23-6-77 and 1802 dated 7-6-76 (Anex. a to the counter-affidavit ). However, it is also contended that the writ petitioner is not entitled for family pension in accordance with rules of the department as contained in government letter Nos.1069 dated 23-6-77 and 1802 dated 7-6-76 (Anex. a to the counter-affidavit ). It is further stated that the family pension Rule was in vogue on 1-4-76 and the writ petitioners husband died on 15-12-74. So, according to the respondents it is not applicable in the case of the petitioner. 4. As regards the claim of pension to the deceased husband of the petitioner, it is stated that after the take over of the schools by the State pensionary benefits commenced from 1-4-76. and only thereafter the teachers became entitled to enjoy the right of pension before his/her lifetime only. ut before the said date the Pension rule was not for the teacher except, the government servants. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that initially the employees of the non-government elementary management were simply entitled to the benefits of contributory provident fund. But in order to improve their service conditions in this respect the State Government after careful consideration decided to institute a triple benefit (Provident fundcum-Insurance-cum-Pension) scheme for such employees with effect from 1st april, 1962, vide Education Department notification No.3431 dated 4th september, 1964. The Rule in this regard was also framed, which is known as Bihar Non-Government Schools employee provident Fund, Insurance-Pension (Triple Benefit Scheme) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules. Under sub-clause para (3) of para 3 of the aforementioned Government notification employees, retring from the schools on or after 1st April, 1964 were made eligible for the benefit of pension or gratuity under the scheme. Chapter V of the aforementioned Rules deals with pension and gratuity and under rule 12 of Chapter V of the rules pension has been made admissible to an employee, who has completed 10 years of qualifying service and under rules 3 gratuity also has been made admissible to an employee, who has completed five years of qualifying service under other rules of the said chapter certain conditions have been laid down for an employee becoming entitled for payment of pension and gratuity, with which we are not concerned as it is not the case of the respondents that the husband of the petitioner did not fulfil those conditions. 6. 6. The family pension scheme for state Government employees was introduced by he State Government vide it is Finance Department Memo No. Pen-103/64/9505/fi, dated 3rd September, 1954. The said scheme was brought into force with effect from 1st April, 64 and made applicable to all regular employees on pensionable establishment temporary or permanent who are in service on the 1st April, 1964 or recruited thereafter. Sub-para (1) or para 6 of the said memo provides that the family pension will be admissible in case of death while in service or after retirement on or after the 1st April, 1964, if at the time of death the retired officer was in receipt of a compensation, invalid/retiring or superannuation pension. In case of death while in service the Government servant is required to have completed a minimum period of one year of service, for making his family entitled for the family pension widow is included in the definition of family. Under para 7 every employees eligible to the benefit of the scheme is required to surrender a portion of gratuity, where admissible, equal to his two months emoluments subject to a maximum of Rs.3,600/-where an officer governed by this scheme retires as a bachelor, who has not adopted any child, no deduction from his gratuity is to be made. In cases where the gratuity admissible is less than two months pay the same will be resumed by the Government against the family pension benefits admissible under the scheme. 7. The Government employees in service upto the 31st March 1964, who are governed by liberalised pension rules, wholly or partly, have been given option to elect the scheme within six months from the date of issue of the memo in substitution of existing family pension benefit as admissible under the liberalised pension rules or retain their existing benefit. In case of failure to exercise the option within the stipulated period the person will be deemed to have elected the new scheme of family pension and persons who died without exercising any option between 1-4-64 and time allowed for exercise of option will be deemed to have elected the new scheme of family pension, if it is favourable to him. 8. Under para 11 of the said memo, those who entered in service on or after 1st April, 1964, will automatically be governed by this scheme. 9. 8. Under para 11 of the said memo, those who entered in service on or after 1st April, 1964, will automatically be governed by this scheme. 9. It is not the case of the respondents that the case of the petitioner is not governed by the said rule. The respondents have only attempted to place reliance on the Government letters dated 7-6-76 and 23-6-77, contained in annexure a to the counter-affidavit, which deal with payment of pensionary benefit to the teachers/employees of the nationalised non-government elementary schools. Letter No.1802 dated 7-6-76 deals with the cases of such employees, who either on completion of 58 years or in excess of that have been made to superannuate on 31-1-76. It is true that para 5 of letter No.1069 dated 23-6-77 states that the teachers retiring from the nationalised elementary schools on 1-4-76 or thereafter will be entitled for all the pensionary benefits admissible to a government servant as per the bihar Pension Rules. But in para 1 of the said letter it is mentioned that the teachers retiring before 1.4.76 will be entitled for the pension under the triple Benefit scheme. Thus, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned Counsel for the State that the petitioner is not entitled for any pensionary benefit at all. 10. The Rules provides that pension and gratuity shall be admissible to the employees who have completed 10 years and 5 years of qualifying service respectively and under the aforesaid family pension scheme, family pension is admissible to the family of the deceased Government servant, who died while in service or after retirement on or after 1st April, 1964 and completed a minimum period of one year of service. In such circumstance in my opinion, I find it difficult to accept the stand of the respondents that the deceased husband of the petitioner or the petitioner will not be entitled for any pensionary benefit at all. 11. In such circumstance in my opinion, I find it difficult to accept the stand of the respondents that the deceased husband of the petitioner or the petitioner will not be entitled for any pensionary benefit at all. 11. As in the counter-affidavit which has been sworn by the District superintendent of Education, Vaishali it is mentioned that the relevant records are not available at Vaishali, of consider it expedient to dispose of the writ application with the direction to the Commissioner, Primary Education, bihar, Patna (respondent No.2) to get the records of the deceased husband of the petitioner from the concerned office and get the calculation of the pensionary benefit admissible to the petitioner and to her late husband be made and dispose of the claim by a reasoned order within four weeks of the receipt/production of a copy of this older. The respondent is also directed to issue necessary sanction order for payment of the admitted dues of the petitioner within the aforementioned time whereafter the Accountant-General, Bihar (respondent No.5), for whom Mr. Sharma, learned Standing counsel for Central Government appears, is directed to issue necessary authority slip within one week of receipt of the sanction order. 12. As the pensionary benefits, for which the petitioner is entitled have been kept withheld without any valid justification,in my opinion, she is also entitled for interest at the rate of 10% per annum payable from the due date of payment until the actual payment is made. Respondent No.2 shall also get the calculation of the interest made and paid along with the dues within the aforementioned time. 13. The petitioner will be at liberty to challenge the correctness of the reasoned order or the calculation, which shall also be supplied to her by the respondent No.2 within the aforesaid time, before appropriate forum. Petition Allowed.