Honble VERMA, J. – The petitioner, mother of late Miss Vasanthi Kumari, has filed this writ petition for claiming family pension, on account of death of her daughter Miss Vasanthi Kumari, who was working as Ladies Health Visitor (for short as ``LHV) at Primary Health Centre, Swaroopganj Distt. Sirohi and had died while in service on 19.8.1990 after rendering the total service of 18 years, 7 months and22 days from 27.1.1972 to 19.8.1990. It is stated by the petitioner that her daughter was unmarried and the petitioner was totally dependent on her for her livelihood. The husband of the petitioner had also died on 6.10.1986. It is stated that all the expenses of the family were being met by her daughter and the petitioner had no source of income whatsoever except the income of her late daughter Miss Vasanthi.It is stated that the petitioner was entitled to family pension in accordance with the provisions of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 and she had also applied for the family pension on account of death of her daughter which was duly recommended by the Deputy Chief Medical & Health Officer (Family Welfare), Sirohi to the Pension Department vide letter dated 20.1.1994, copy of which has been attachedas Annex. A/2. But ultimately, her claim was rejected vide order dated 16.8.1994 (Annex. A/5) on the ground that the petitioner did not fall within the definition of ``Family of late Miss Vasanthi and, therefore, family pension was not payable to her. It is stated by the petitioner that interpretation given by the respondents to the definition of `Family is not correct and the petitioner was entitled for pension forthe period of service rendered by her daughter i.e. 18 years, 7 months and 22 days. It is submitted that under Rule 260 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (referred to hereinafter as `the Rules of 1951), the expression `Family has been defined. It is submitted that except the petitioner, there is no other claimant, nor any claim has been made on behalf of any other person. It is asserted by the counsel for thepetitioner that under Rule 265(b) of the Rules of 1951, it is provided that `mother is person entitled to get family pension. It is submitted that except the petitioner, there is no other claimant, nor any claim has been made on behalf of any other person. It is asserted by the counsel for thepetitioner that under Rule 265(b) of the Rules of 1951, it is provided that `mother is person entitled to get family pension. The petitioner has challenged the interpretation made by the respondents for rejecting the case of the petitioner by making reliance on Rule 268D of the Rules of 1951 on the ground that Rule 268D cannot curtail the provisions of Rule 260 as to exclude the father and mother from the defi-nition of `family and, therefore, the impugned order. Annex. 5 is liable to be quashed. It is further challenged by the petitioner that qualifying service for grant of family pension, mentioned in Rule 261 of the Rules of 1951, to be of 20 years, is wholly unreasonable and has no nexus whatsoever for sanctioning family pension to the dependent of the deceased. It is submitted that provisions of 20 years qualifying service as prescribed under Rule 261 of the Rules of 1951 for payment of family pension to the employees in ultra vires, invalid, unconstitutional, and, therefore, deserves to be declared unconstitutional being violative of Article 14 ofthe Constitution of India. It is submitted that the petitioner was entitled to family pension under the New Family Pension Rules. (2). A reply has been filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3. There is no denial of the facts in regard to the rendering of service by deceased daughter of the petitioner, it is submitted that under Rule 268D of the Rules of 1951, the petitioner isnot entitled to family pension. The respondents had taken a defence that the petitioner has not produced any evidence on the record to show that she was solely dependent on the deceased and further that under the provisions of Rule 268D, the petitioner does not fall under the definition of family for grant of pension. It is submitted that Rule 260 does not include the mother in the definition of family butit is submitted that Rule 260 is to be made applicable in the case of payment of gratuity only. It is admitted that the gratuity had been paid to the petitioner for being included in the definition of family under Rule 260 of the Rules of 1951. It is admitted that the gratuity had been paid to the petitioner for being included in the definition of family under Rule 260 of the Rules of 1951. According to the respondents Rule 268D excludes all other members as dependent for the purpose of sanction of family pension except wife, husband, minor sons and unma-rried daughters and, therefore, as a matter of fact, if a unmarried Government servant unfortunately dies, the parents, brothers or sisters are not entitled to any family pension. (3). Government of Rajasthan has framed the Rajasthan Civil Service Rules under Article 309 of the Constitution of India called as the Rajasthan Service Rules,1951. Chapter XVII of Part 3 deals with the payment of pension. Under Chapter XX, Rule 214 `pensions have been classified into four classes i.e. Compensation pension, Invalid pension, Superannuation pension and Retiring Pension. The compensation pension is granted to the Government servant who is selected for discharge owing to the abolition of his permanent post, he shall be entitled to receive compen-compensation pension unless he is appointed to another post, the conditions of which are deemed by the authority competent to discharge him to be at least equal to those of his own post. Invalid pension is granted on his retirement from public service to a Government servant who by bodily or mental infirmity is permanently incapacitated for the public service or for the particular branch of it to which hebelongs. Under Rule 239 a superannuation pension is granted to a Government servant required to retire under Rules 56 and 56A. A retiring pension is granted to a Government servant who retires or is retired under Rule 244 i.e. a Government servant may, `after giving atleast 3 months previous notice in writing to the Appointing Authority, retire from service on the date on which he completes 20 years ofqualifying service or attains the age of 45 years whichever is earlier or any date thereafter to be specified in the notice. Rule 257 of Section II deals with the death-cum-retirement gratuity. Rule 257 provides that the death-cum-retirement gratuity shall be paid to the Government servants who have completed five years qualifying service and it has been provided that if Government servant dies whilein service, the gratuity is to be conferred on the members as provided under Rule 260. Rule 257 of Section II deals with the death-cum-retirement gratuity. Rule 257 provides that the death-cum-retirement gratuity shall be paid to the Government servants who have completed five years qualifying service and it has been provided that if Government servant dies whilein service, the gratuity is to be conferred on the members as provided under Rule 260. Rule 260 defines the family for the purpose of death-cum-retirement gratuity which includes wife, husband, sons, unmarried and widowed daughters, brothers below the age of 18 years and unmarried and widowed sisters, father, mother, married daughter and children of a predeceased son. The gratuity has already been paid to the petitioner after considering her as a member of family as provided under Rule 260 of the Rules. (4). Chapter XIII deals with the family pension and, it has been provided in Rule 261 that family pension, not exceeding the amount specified in Rule 262 may be granted to the family of an officer who dies, whether while still in service or after retirement after completion of not less than 20 years qualifying service, for a period of ten years. Rule 262 defines family for the above purposes as defined in Rule 260 meaning thereby if an employee has minimum qualifying service of 20 years, in that situation, mother shall also be entitled to receive the family pension, for being in-cluded in the definition of family in Rule 260 read with Rule 263. Rule 265 entitles the widow or husband as the case may be or to the eldest surviving widow to receive the family pension and failing the above, to the unmarried daughter and then eldest widowed daughter and failing all these as provided in Rule 262(1), the father and the mother. Rule 268 provides that a pension sanctioned will be tenablein addition to any extraordinary pension or gratuity or compensation that may be granted to the members of a Government servants family under the rules. (5). Chapter XXIII-A has been added after introduction of New Family Pension Rules and these rules have been made applicable to all those employees temporary or permanent, who are in service on the 1st day of March, 1964 or who enter serviceon or after that date. (5). Chapter XXIII-A has been added after introduction of New Family Pension Rules and these rules have been made applicable to all those employees temporary or permanent, who are in service on the 1st day of March, 1964 or who enter serviceon or after that date. Rule 268-B makes family pension admissible from the dates specified in Rule 268-C to the family of an officer who dies on or after the 1st March, 1964-(a) while in service, after completion of not less than one years service, provided that in certain cases the condition of one years service will not be applicable. Rule 268-C provides the amount of family pension admissible in respectof an officer who dies on or after 31.10.1974 and a new definition of `family has been inserted under Rule 268D wherein only the wife, husband, minor sons and unmarried minor daughters have been included in the definition of family. (6). Relevant rules are reproduced as under :– ``260. Family defined :– (1) For the purpose of this rule – (a) ``Family shall include the following relatives of the officer – (i) wife, in the case of a male officer; (ii) husband, in the case of a female officer; (iii) sons; (iv) unmarried and widowed daughters; (v) brother below the age of 18 years and unmarried or widowed sisters; (vi) father , and (vii) mother Note :– (III) and (IV) will include step-children. (b) ``Person for the purpose of this rule shall include any company or association or body of individuals whether incorportated or not. (2) When necessary. – A Government servant shall as soon as he completes five years qualifying service, make a nomination conferring on one or more persons, the right to receive any gratuity that may be sanctioned to him under sub- paragraph (2) of Rule 257 and under Rule 258 and gratuity which having become admissible to him under sub-paragraph (1) of Rule 257 and under Rule 256 has not been paid to him before death: Provided that if at the time of making the nomination, the officer has family, the nomination shall not be in favour of any persons other than the members of his family. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER XXIII 261. Condition for grant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER XXIII 261. Condition for grant. – A family pension, not exceeding the amount specified in Rule 262 may be granted to the family of an officer who dies, whether while still in service or after retirement after completion of not less than 20 years qualifying service, for a period of then years : Provided that the period of payment of family pension will in no case extend beyond a period of 5 years from the date on which the decea- sed officer retired or on which he would have retired on a superannuation pension in the normal course, according as the death takes place after retirement or while the officer is in service. 263. Definition – ``Family foor the purposes of this section will be as defined in Rule 260. 265. Order of allotment – Except as may be provided by nomination under Rule 266– (a) a pension sanctioned under this section will be allowed – (i) to the eldest surviving widow, if the deceased is a male Government servant or to the husband if the deceased is a woman Govern- ment servant. NOTE The expression ``eldest surviving widow occurring in clause (a) (i) above should be construed with reference to the seniority according to the date of marriage with the officer and not with reference to the age of the surviving widows. (ii) failing a widow or husband, as the case may be, to the eldest surviving son; (iii) failing (i) and (ii) , to the eldest surviving unmarried daughter; (iv) these failing, to the eldest widowed daughter, and (b) in the event of no pension becoming payable under clause (a) the pension may be granted– (i) to the father; (ii) failing the father, to the mother; (iii) failing the father and the mother to the eldest surviving brother below the age of 18; (iv) these failing, to the eldest suriving unmarried sister; (v) failing (i) to (iv), to the eldest surviving widowed sister. CHAPTER XXXIIIA 268-A. Applicability. CHAPTER XXXIIIA 268-A. Applicability. – This chapter shall apply to all Government servants on pensionable establishment, whether temporary or permanent, who are in service on the 1st day of March, 1964 or who enter service on or after that date, but shall not apply to - (a) persons, who retired before the 1st day of March, 1964, but may re-employed on that date or thereafter; (b) persons paid from contingencies; (c) work-charged staff; (d) casual labour; and (e) contract officers. 268 B. Admissibility of pension. – Family pension on the rates speci- fied in Rule 268C shall be granted, under this Chapter, to the family of an officer who dies on or after the 1st March, 1964.- (a) While in service, after completion of not less than one years service, provided that in the following cases the condition of one years service will not be applicable. ... ... ... ... ... 268D. Definitions (1) ``Family, for the purposes of this Chapter, will include the following relations of the officer :– (a) wife, in the case of male officer; (b) husband, in the case of a female officer; (c) minor sons; and (d) unmarried minor daughters. NOTES (1) (c) and (d) will include children adopted legally before retirement. (2) Marriage after retirement will not be recognised for the purpose of this rule. (2) ``Continuous service for the purpose of this Chapter, means service rendered in a temporary or permanent capacity in a pensionable establishment but does not includes the period of service, if any, rendered before attaining the age of eighteen years. (7). The pension is a property, as has been held by Honble Apex Court in D.S.Nakara and Ors. (2) ``Continuous service for the purpose of this Chapter, means service rendered in a temporary or permanent capacity in a pensionable establishment but does not includes the period of service, if any, rendered before attaining the age of eighteen years. (7). The pension is a property, as has been held by Honble Apex Court in D.S.Nakara and Ors. vs. Union of India (1), wherein the Honble Supreme Court had held as under :– ``With the expanding horizons of socio-economic justice, the Socialist Republic and Welfare State which the country endeavours to set up and the fact that the old men who retired when emoluments were comparatively low are exposed to vagaries of continuously rising prices, the falling value of the rupee consequent upon inflationary inputs, by introducing an arbitrary eligibility criteria, ``being in service and retiring subsequent to the specified date for being eligible for liberalised pension scheme and thereby dividing a homogeneous class, the classification being not based on any discrenible rational principle and being wholly unrelated to the objects sought to be achieved by grant of liberalised pension and the eligibility criteria devised being thoroughly arbitrary, the eligibility for liberalised pension scheme of ``being in service on the specified date and retiring subsequent to that date in the memoranda, violates Art. 14 and is unconstitutional and liable to be struck down. ``The fundamental principle is that Art. 14 forbids class legislation but permits reasonable classification for the purpose of legislation which classification must satisfy the twin tests of classification being founded on an intelligible differential which distinguishes persons or things that are grouped together with those that are left out of the group and that differentia must have a rational nexus to the object sought to be achieved by the statute in question. The doctrine of classification was evolved to sustain a legislation or State action desi- gned to help weaker sections of the society or some such segments of the society in need of succour. Legislative and executive action may accordingly be sustained if it satisfies the twin test of reasonable classification and the rational principle correlated to the object sought to be achieved. The State, therefore, would have to affirmati- vely satisfy the Court that the twin tests have been satisfied. Legislative and executive action may accordingly be sustained if it satisfies the twin test of reasonable classification and the rational principle correlated to the object sought to be achieved. The State, therefore, would have to affirmati- vely satisfy the Court that the twin tests have been satisfied. It can only be satisfied if the State establishes, not only the rational principle on which classification is founded but correlates it to the objects sought to be achieved. Where all relevant considerations are the same, persons holding identical posts may not be treated differently in the matter of their pay merely because they belong to different departments. If that cannot be done when they are in service, can that be done during their retirement? Expanding this principle, it can confidently be said that if pensioners from a class, their computation cannot be by different formula affording unequal treatment solely on the ground that some retired earlier and some retired later. Further, Art. 39 (e) requires the State to secure that the health and strength of workers, men and women, and children of tender age are not abused and that citizens are not forced by economic necessity to enter avocations unsuited to their age or strength. Article 41 obligates the State within the limits of its economic capacity and development, to make effective provision for securing the right to work, to education and to provide assistance in cases of unemployment, old age, sickness and disablement, and in other cases of undeserved want. Article 43(3) requires the State to endeavour to secure amongst other things full enjoyment of leisure and social and cultural opportunities. Furthermore, the principal aim of a socialist State as envisaged in the Preamble is to eliminate inequality in income and status and standards of life. The basic frame work of socialism is to provide a decent standard of life to the workin people and especially provide security from cradle to grave. This amongst others on economic side envisaged economic equality and equitable distribution of income. This is a blend of Marxism and Gandhism leaning heavy towards Gandhian socialism. (8). It has been held in Deoki Nandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2), that pension is a right and the payment of its does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. (8). It has been held in Deoki Nandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar (2), that pension is a right and the payment of its does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the rules and a Government servant coming within those rules is entitled to claim pension. It was further held that the grant of pension does not depend upon anyones discretion. (9). The Honble Apex Court in the case of D.S. Nakara (supra) had held as under :– ``In the course of transformation of society from feudal to welfare and as socialistic thinking acquired respectability, State obligation to provide security in old age, an escape from underseved want was recognised and as a first step pension was treated not only as a reward for past service but with a view to helping the employee to avoid destitution in old age. The quid pro quo was that when the employee was physically and mentally alert, the rendered into the master the best, expecting him to look after him in the fall of life. A retirement system therefore exists solely for the purpose of providing benefits. In most of the plans of retirement benefits, everyone who qualifies for normal retirement receives the same amount. ``26. Let us therefore examine what are the goals that pension scheme seeks to subserve? A pension scheme consistent with availa- ble resources must provide that the pensioner would be able to live : (i) free from want, with decency, independence and self-respect, and (ii) at a standard equivalent at the pre- retirement level. This approach may merit the criticism that if a developing country like India cannot provide an employee while rendering service a living wage, how can one be assured of it in retirement? This can be aptly illustrated by a small illustration. A man with a broken arm asked his doctor whether he will be able to play the piano after the cast is removed. When assured that he will, the patient replied, ``that is funny, I could not before. It appears that in determining the minimum amount required for living decently is difficult, selecting the percentage representing the proper ratio between earnings and the retirement income is harder. But it is imperative to note that as self- sufficiency declines the need for his attendance or institutional care grows. Many are literally surviving now than the past. It appears that in determining the minimum amount required for living decently is difficult, selecting the percentage representing the proper ratio between earnings and the retirement income is harder. But it is imperative to note that as self- sufficiency declines the need for his attendance or institutional care grows. Many are literally surviving now than the past. We owe it to them and ourselves that they live, not merely exist. (10). It was held by the Honble Apex Court that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer and that it creates a vested right subject to 1972 Rules which are statutory in character becausethey are enacted in exercise of the powers conferred by the proviso to Article 309 and clause (5) of Article 148 of the Constitution, (ii) that the pension is not an ex gratia payment but it is a payment for the past services rendered; and (iii) it is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey days of their life ceaselessly, toiled for the employer on an assurance that in theirold age they would not be left in lurch. (11). In the present case, it is admitted case that in case an employee has put in 20 years service or more than that, the father or mother of such employee is also entitled to pension and they have been included in the definition of `family. The reason behind the inclusion of father or mother in the definition of family was togrant pension so that the old parents of the deceased employee would not suffer hardship. Under Rule 260 after completing the qualifying service, the right of father or mother to get retiral benefits including the pension is recognised and this recognition by the State Government is subject to employees putting the qualifying service of 20 years. If the Government servant dies while in service or even afterretirement the heirs mentioned in Rule 260 are entitled to pension as per the order mentioned therein and this Rule 260 has been adopted for the purpose of pension by Rule 263 and Rule 265. It is recognised that pension becomes property if an employee has put in 20 years service and it is payable to his dependents as the case may be. It is recognised that pension becomes property if an employee has put in 20 years service and it is payable to his dependents as the case may be. New Family Pension rules came into force on or after 1st day of March,1964 and it was once again recognised that if an employee has put in one years service and dies while in service, the family pension will be payable to his/her heirs. Right of pension has been recognised even in the case where the service of employee is less than 20 years, but the State Government has limited the right of pension only to 4 heirs i.e. husband, wife, as the case may be, sons and daughtersand none else. From a bare reading of Rule 261 which deals with the qualifying service of 20 years read with the definition of family as provided under Rules 260, 263 and 265B it is revealed that the State Government had thought it proper to include father or mother, as the case may be, as one of the recipients of pension. As per the order mentioned in Rule 265B of the said rules, the exclusion of a depen-dent mother of an employee who has put in more than 18 years of service and has no other dependents or is unmarried shall be hit by un reasonable classification to take away the property of pension of a deceased employee by adopting the prinicple of exclusion. Take for example, if this very late Miss Basanthi had been married, her husband and minor children would have been entitled to pension,irrespective of the fact whether the husband was earning or not or husband is dependent or not, for the services put by her while serving the State for more than 10 years, but less than 20 years or and in the case of death of husband, had the children been there, the children would have been entitled to pension for the reason that pension was payable even for service less than 18 years, but in case theofficial dies as bachelor while in service, puts in less than 20 years service, the mother and father had been excluded for receiving pension, even though either of them may be dependent on the deceased Government servant. This is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The pension is payable for the service rendered by the officer concerned. This is unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The pension is payable for the service rendered by the officer concerned. If the service is more than 20 years, the father or mother becomes automatically entitled to receive the pension under the rules but if it is less than 20 years, they have been excluded from family pension even if they are totally dependent on the deceased. There is no rational nexus behind such an arbitrary classification. (12). In my opinion, for the purpose of family pension, in such situation, the exclusion of mother who has otherwise been included as dependent in Rule 260 for the purpose of Rule 261 read with Rules 263 and 265 is arbitrary. The scheme of pension is to provide pension to the pensioner for the services rendered and to grant family pension to the dependent after the death of the pensioner. It cannotbe imagined that father or mother though have been specified as dependents for the purpose of pension, in the pension rule 265, if a deceased Government servant has rendered 20 years of service but those very father or mother have been excluded if the service is less than 20 years for the purpose of family pension. Therefore, the exclusion of dependent parents to receive the family pension, if noother dependent is available or if the official dies as unmarried, for the services rendered by such official of less than 20 years. When specially family pension is payable under the New Family Pension rule 268B even if service is one year and less than 20 years, but to only the heirs mentioned therein, under the rules, is not justified and ultra vires, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution ofIndia. The provision in Rule 261 that after completion of not less than 20 years qualifying service has no rational or nexus and is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The family pension shall be payable to the heirs as mentioned in Rule 265 and in that order even if the service is less than 20 years in consonance with Rule 268B of the Rules. The family pension shall be payable to the heirs as mentioned in Rule 265 and in that order even if the service is less than 20 years in consonance with Rule 268B of the Rules. Therefore, Rule 265 shall also be applica-ble in the order mentioned in such rules to the heirs mentioned in the rules even if the service is less than 20 years under the New Family Pension Rules, if family pension has been made payable. (13). From the above discussion, the petitioner because of the reason that the deceased officer Miss Basanthi, who was unmarried and had left no heir exceptthe old widowed mother (petitioner) of 68 years, shall be entitled to family pension to be calculated under the rules. A direction is, therefore, issued to the respondents to determine the dependents pension admissible to the petitioner. The payment shall be made with effect from the date of death of Miss Basanthi. The petitioner shall be entitled to interest @ 12% per annum and necessary payment will be madewithin a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The petitioner shall also be entitled to costs of Rs. 1000/-. In the result, the writ petition is allowed with the above said directions.