G. PATRI BASAVANA GOUD, J. ( 1 ) PYAREJAN, husband of the 1st respondent and father of petitioners 2 to 5, had been serving in the 1st respondent-ksrtc. He was a member of the family pension fund under the employees' family pension scheme, 1971 ('scheme' for short ). He died on 26-6-1988, having been bedridden due to illness for one year five months prior to the date of his death and during such period of one year five months, no wages were drawn. On his death, the petitioners sought family pension in terms of the scheme. The 3rd respondent-regional provident fund commissioner, by the communication dated 14-3-1997 at Annexure-n, intimated the 1st petitioner that, the petitioners were not entitled to family pension in terms of the scheme for the reason that, pyarejan had break in service in excess of one year. The 3rd respondent was referring to the absence without wages of pyarejan during the above said period of one year five months. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution, the widow and children of deceased pyarejan seek quashing of the said Annexure-n. ( 2 ) THE family pension is payable under the scheme with reference to the 'reckonable service' as defined under paragraph 2 (f) of the scheme. In this writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution, the widow and children of deceased pyarejan seek quashing of the said Annexure-n. ( 2 ) THE family pension is payable under the scheme with reference to the 'reckonable service' as defined under paragraph 2 (f) of the scheme. The said paragraph 2 (f) as it stood prior to 1-4-1988 reads thus: "paragraph 2 (f) - 'reckonable service' means service rendered by a member of the family pension fund in respect of which contributions are payable under this scheme and includes any period of service in respect of which no wages are drawn by such member on account of temporary closure of the establishment, strike, lock-out or leave without pay, or for any other reason, of a similar nature or otherwise, and in respect of which contributions (both the member's and employer's shares) are payable by diversion from his provident fund account as provided in sub-paragraph (2-a) of paragraph 9 of this scheme and also includes any period of service in respect of which wages are drawn but no contributions are payable in terms of sub-paragraph (4) of paragraph 9 and which shall be deemed to have been paid for purposes of paragraphs 28, 31 and 32 of this scheme: provided that no period of service, in respect of which no wages are drawn by a member, (i) after the name of the member has been struck off from the rolls of the employer of the member; or (ii) xxx xxx xxx; (iii) after there ceases to be any amount in the fund or in the provident fund of an exempted establishment, as the case may be, lying to the credit of the member concerned, shall be treated as reckonable service". The 3rd respondent was obviously referring to clause (ii) of the pro- viso to sub-para (f) of paragraph 2 of the schemes when he was referring to the break in the services of pyarejan for more than one year at Annexure-n. As the said paragraph 2 (f) stood prior to 1-4-1988, the 3rd respondent's contention that, widow would not be entitled to family pension if the break in services of the deceased employee exceeds one year would have been correct. In fact, to repeat, the assertion of 3rd respondent that petitioners are not entitled to family pension has been solely based on the said clause (ii) of proviso to sub-para (f) of paragraph 2 of the scheme as is evident both from the contention taken in the objection statement and as also what is submitted in course of arguments by the learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Sri udayashankar for Sri Harikrishna holla. The position, however, is different from 1-4-1988. The said clause (ii) of the proviso to sub-para (f) of paragraph 2 has been omitted by gsr No. 500, dated 3-6-1988, but, with effect from 1 4-1988. It is the scheme as prevailing on the date of death of pyarejan and that should govern the payment of family pension to the petitioners, because, the consideration of question as to whether one is entitled to family pension or not has to be done under the Provisions as existing at the time the right to family pension accrued to the petitioners. That night accrued on 26-6-1988 on the death of pyarejan. By then, i. e. , with effect from 1-4-1988, clause (ii) of proviso to paragraph 2 (f) which prohibited a non-wage period in excess of one year to be computed as reckonable service had been omitted. As paragraph 2 (f) stood on 26-6-1988, t here was no provision that would have denied the petitioners the benefit of said period of one year five months, during which period, pyareja had not drawn wages. The contribution for that period is also taken due care of in paragraph 2 (f) of the scheme itself wherein it is provided that, in such a situation, diversion from the provident fund account of the concerned member had to be referred to as provided in sub-paragraph (2-a) of paragraph 9 of the scheme. The 3rd respondent, therefore, was in error in referring to a non-existing clause (ii) of proviso to sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 2 in denying the family pension to the petitioners. ( 3 ) WRIT petition is allowed. Annexure-n is quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to settle the family pension in accordance with the scheme. The 3rd respondent, therefore, was in error in referring to a non-existing clause (ii) of proviso to sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 2 in denying the family pension to the petitioners. ( 3 ) WRIT petition is allowed. Annexure-n is quashed. The 3rd respondent is directed to settle the family pension in accordance with the scheme. The amount paid, if any, shall be given due deduction and the arrears shall be paid within four months from the date a certified copy of this order is made available to the 3rd respondent either by the 3rd respondent's counsel or by the petitioners or their counsel. --- *** --- .