JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner who is an old lady of about 90 years of age and who is present in Court today with her counsel, has claimed the relief of family pension on the grounds inter-alia that Late husband of the petitioner Bhagwat Swaroop had served as a constable Grade-1 on salary of Rs. 8/- per month in the erstwhile State of Bharatpur. This fact is borne out from the appointment order Annexure-1 dated 24.4.1914. It has been contended by the petitioner that she is leading a miserable life in absence of any source of livelihood and there was no option available with her except to move this Court by way of this writ petition. The Late husband of the petitioner was promoted as Head Constable by the Department and subsequently as Assistant Sub-Inspector and ultimately retired from the police force w.e.f. 6.5.1946. 2. It has further been contended that as per rules as prevalent in the erstwhile State of Bharatpur, the petitioner's Late husband was sanctioned pension after his retirement. However no sanction letter has been placed on the record. It has been contended in this regard that since there was no rule prevalent at that time for grant of family pension, no orders for family pension could be made applicable to the petitioner, after the demise of her husband. Shri Bhagwat Swaroop died on 30.8.1948 and copy of death certificate vide Annexure-3 has been placed on the record. It has further been contended that the petitioner has surrendered the Pension Payment Order relief of her Late husband with the Treasury Officer, Bharatpur and thereafter no record is available with her. It has further been contended by the petitioner that subsequent to the demise of her husband the petitioner was not given any financial assistance by the Police Department of State Government and she has just been surviving with no support from any quarter whatsoever. 3. It would be significant to note that on 2.12.89 the State Government of Rajasthan issued a circular vide Annexure-4 regarding grant of minimum pension/family pension in respect of Rajasthan State pensioners who retired prior to 1.4.51 and where pension cases were decided in accordance with the rules of respective erstwhile States and the erstwhile State Pensioners including those of Ajmer State w.e.f. 1.11.89. Notwithstanding the above circular, certain categories of pensioners to whom the relief was granted from time to time by the State Government and who were not extended this benefit and such helpless employees have been representing their case to the State Government from time to time to consider the same on compassionate grounds for extension of such reliefs. In my view the State circular fully covers the case of petitioner, since admittedly the petitioner's husband had expired prior to the intended date i.e. 1.4.51 as per the death certificate (Annexure-3) on the record. The perusal of the said circular reveals that the same has been extended to the erstwhile State pensioners of Rajasthan who had opted for pension under the rules including those who were getting the benefit of pension as prevalent in their respective States and cases were decided in accordance with the rules of the respective erstwhile States. 4. In the reply to the writ petition filed by the respondents it has been contended inter-alia that on account of non-availability of the record, they are not in a position to give specific reply to the petition. This fact has also not been controverted by the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur who has filed the Addl. affidavit in this Court. In para-3 of the said affidavit the deponent has stated that the records are available in the office of respondent No. 2 of the relevant period. However he has stated that the record of the period 19.4.46 can be procured and made available from the Bikaner office of the respondents, and the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur sent a communication to the office of State Archaeological Department vide his letter dated 19.12.94 in reply to the said letter. The State Archaeological Department, Bikaner has also expressed its helplessness on the ground of non- availability of record for the relevant period. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also examined the documents on the record. The learned Counsel for respondents have also expressed their helplessness in the matter on account of non-availability of the records for the relevant period as referred to above. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and also examined the documents on the record. The learned Counsel for respondents have also expressed their helplessness in the matter on account of non-availability of the records for the relevant period as referred to above. Under the circumstances the only conclusion which emerges is that the petitioner who is the widow of Late Bhagwat Swaroop who had rendered his services in the office of respondent No. 2 in the erstwhile Bharatpur State and had completed the qualifying period for entitlement to grant to pension/family pension should be declared entitled for the grant of the relief of family pension as prayed in the writ petition. I am further of the opinion that denial of pension to the petitioner would be a clear violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The Apex Court in several decisions and also this court has consistently taken stand that the right to pension i.e. livelihood is an integral part of Article 21 of the Constitution and in my considered opinion right to livelihood would become meaningless in absence of this relief which is a bare minimum which can be done by the State Government for the survival of the petitioner. 6. In this respect, I would further like to observe that the onus of proving the petitioner's eligibility as well the entitlement for grant of family pension was heavily on the respondents which they have failed to discharge on the grounds of non-availability of the records. 7. The writ petition is consequently allowed with no order as to cost. The petitioner is accordingly held entitled for the grant of family pension. The petitioner is directed to execute the relevant documents in this regard on or before 8th November, 1996 and thereafter respondent No. 2, Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, shall pass necessary orders for sanction of family pension to the petitioner from the State Government in this regard and thereafter by 26th November, 1996. Respondent No. 2 is further directed to prepare relevant documents and forward the same to Pension Department i.e. respondent No. 3. The respondents are further directed to convey necessary sanction as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than 28th December, 1996. 8. Petitioner will be entitled for the relief of family pension with effect from the date of the circular viz. The respondents are further directed to convey necessary sanction as expeditiously as possible and in any case not later than 28th December, 1996. 8. Petitioner will be entitled for the relief of family pension with effect from the date of the circular viz. 2.12.89 which became effective with effect from 1.11.89.Petition allowed. *******