JUDGMENT 1. - This writ petition has been filed by the Association of the widows of the employees of erstwhile Jodhpur State and upon the merger of the State of Jodhpur with the State of Rajasthan became employees of State of Rajasthan and thereafter their services were transferred to Rajasthan State Electricity Board and they expired prior to 17.10.87, the date notified for giving option to pensionary benefits. 2. The petitioners' case is that there is authoritative pronouncement of this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1335 of 1989 decided on 22.1.92 that the widows of the C.P.F. holders who had expired before 17.10.87 are entitled to ex-gratia payment of Rs. 150 per month w.e.f. 1.11.91 in addition to the admissible dearness allowance in view of the directions of the Apex Court in the case of the State of Rajasthan v. Rajasthan Pensioners Samaj, 1991 Lab IC 1651 . It has been averred that the husbands of the petitioners had died prior to 17.10.1987 and therefore they are entitled to the ex-gratia pension but the respondents have not released the payment as yet. It has been prayed that the respondents be directed to make payment of arrears with interest @ 24% per annum. 3. In the reply filed by the respondent No. 1 i.e. the RSEB, it has been averred that the judgment delivered in the case of R.S.E.B. Retired Employees v. R.S.E.B. applies only to the widows whose husbands were the members of the Jodhpur Contributory Provident Fund and retired and died availing the Jodhpur C.P.F. scheme, and as the various person in the list enclosed with the writ petition were not the members of the Jodhpur C.P.F., they are not entitled to ex-gratia payment. 4. In the reply filed by respondent No. 3 also it has been averred that the judgment relied on by the petitioners is not applicable in the case of the petitioner Association. It has also been stated that this respondent has got no jurisdiction to grant ex-gratia pension directly and the sanctioning authority is R.S.E.B. 5. Respondent No. 2 State of Rajasthan in its reply has averred that the widows whose husbands were employees of Electrical and Mechanical Department were not the members of Jodhpur C.P.F. and, therefore, they are not entitled to ex-gratia payment. 6. Respondent No. 2 State of Rajasthan in its reply has averred that the widows whose husbands were employees of Electrical and Mechanical Department were not the members of Jodhpur C.P.F. and, therefore, they are not entitled to ex-gratia payment. 6. In the rejoinder it has been averred that all the persons mentioned in the schedule annexed with the writ petition are the persons whose husbands were appointed in the erstwhile Jodhpur State and they were the members of the C.P.F. and hence in view of the authoritative pronouncement of this Court they are entitled to the ex-gratia payment. 7. Reply to the rejoinder has also been filed by the R.S.E.B. denying the liability of ex-gratia payment. 8. Mr. Singhvi, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the matter is fully covered by the decision in the case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1679/93 Rajya Vidhyut Mandal Karamchari Sangh v. R.S.E.B. dated 2.5.97 . He submitted that the judgment in the case of R.S.E.B. Retired Employees' v. R.S.E.B. is judgment in rem and 24 petitioners of Schedules A and B are entitled to the ex-gratia payment. He frankly conceded that the six petitioners of Schedule C are not entitled to ex-gratia payment as they were the employees of the R.S.E.B. itself and not covered under the Government orders. 9. On the other hand Mr. Bhansali, learned counsel for the R.S.E.B. contended that the judgment delivered in the case of R.S.E.B. Retired Employees' v. R.S.E.B. cannot applied to the cases of the employees who were not the members of the Jodhpur C.P.F. as the controversy in that case related to the contributories of the Jodhpur C.P.F. 10. Mr. Udawat, learned Addl. Advocate General submitted that P.P.Os. have already been issued in respect of 10 persons mentioned in Schedule A (Page 30 of the Paper Book) and the matter is under progress for the issuance of the P.P.O. in respect of the remaining two persons. He further submitted that if the R.S.E.B. who is the sanctioning authority issues sanction the State Government has got no objection in making the ex-gratia payment to the persons listed in Schedule B (page 31 of the paper book). 11. I have carefully considered the above arguments. The writ petition has been filed by three sets of persons. As already stated Mr. 11. I have carefully considered the above arguments. The writ petition has been filed by three sets of persons. As already stated Mr. Singhvi frankly conceded during arguments that six persons named in Schedule C (para 32 of the paper book) are not entitled to the ex-gratia payment. It is also evident that P.P.Os. have been issued in respect of 10 persons of schedule A and P.P.Os. shall also be issued in respect of two remaining persons. 12. Now it is to be determined whether 12 persons listed in Schedule B (page 31 of the paper book) are entitled to the ex-gratia payment in view of the judgment rendered in R.S.E.B. Retired Employees' v. R.S.E.B. The observations of the learned single Judge who decided that case are reproduced hereunder:- "However, in view of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Rajasthan's case, 1991 Lab IC 1651, the widows of such C.P.F. Holders who have expired before 17.10.87, will not be entitled to family pension, but they will also entitled to get ex-gratia payment at the rate of 150 per month with effect from 1.11.91 in addition to the admissible dearness allowance as has been directed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case." 13. It was admitted during arguments that the appeals of the State Government and the R.S.E.B. against this direction were dismissed and this direction has attained finality. The directions in the judgment cannot be held to be applicable only to the widows of the Jodhpur C.P.F. Holders. There is no exclusion of the widows of the C.P.F. Holders who were the employees of the Electrical and Mechanical Department. They were also contributing to the contributory provident fund and as they died prior to 17.10.87 on which date they could give their option for the pensionary benefits, and hence the widows of such C.P.F. holders of E. and M. Department cannot be placed in different class than the widows of Jodhpur C.P.F. holders. Both the sets of the employees were the members of the C.P.F. and they had died prior to 17.10.87 before the option to elect the pensionary benefits was given and therefore the petitioners who are widows of the Holders of E. and M. Deptt. Contributory Provident Fund form only one class with the widows of the Jodhpur C.P.F. Holders. 14. Both the sets of the employees were the members of the C.P.F. and they had died prior to 17.10.87 before the option to elect the pensionary benefits was given and therefore the petitioners who are widows of the Holders of E. and M. Deptt. Contributory Provident Fund form only one class with the widows of the Jodhpur C.P.F. Holders. 14. In the case of State of Rajasthan v. Retired Contributory Provident Fund Holders' Association, 1987(1) RLR 353 it was held that all the C.P.F. Holders were governed by one scheme and when they became the employees of the Government of Rajasthan by virtue of the merger of the Princely State in which they were employed they constituted one category irrespective of the fact of their dates of retirement and that all the C.P.F. Holders formed a class in themselves and were similarly situated. This judgment was based on the principle enunciated in the famous case of D.S. Nakara v. Union of India, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 130 . The Constitutional Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had occasion to notice this judgment while deciding the case of Krishena Kumar v. Union of India, AIR 1990 Supreme Court 1872 wherein the principle enunciated in the case of Nakara was explained. It was observed by their Lordships that the facts of this case were distinguishable. It means that the view taken by the Court in the case of Sate of Rajasthan v. C.P.F. Holders' Association, that the holders of C.P.F. formed once class was approved. The widows of such C.P.F. Holders are, therefore, to be held as one class along with the widows of holders of Jodhpur Contributory Provident Fund. That being so, even if it is accepted that the benefit of ex-gratia payment was given in the judgment of R.S.E.B. Retired Employees' v. R.S.E.B. only to the widows of Jodhpur C.P.F. Holders, the widows of C.P.F. holders of E. and M. Department are also entitled to the ex-gratia payment. 15. It is relevant to state that the State Government has even issued order Annex. 4 dated 5.5.95 directing the implementation of the judgment in R.S.E.B. Retired Employees' v. R.S.E.B. It has been directed therein that the judgment may be implemented in respect of the Government servants including work charged establishment of E. and M. Department. 15. It is relevant to state that the State Government has even issued order Annex. 4 dated 5.5.95 directing the implementation of the judgment in R.S.E.B. Retired Employees' v. R.S.E.B. It has been directed therein that the judgment may be implemented in respect of the Government servants including work charged establishment of E. and M. Department. The employees of E. and M. Department were the contributories of E. and M. C.P.F. After the State Government has given clear instructions for implementing the judgment in respect of such employees, there is hardly any scope to deny the benefit of the judgment to the petitioners of Schedule B. (Page 31 of the paper book). 16. In the case of Rajya Vidhyut Mandal Karamachari Sangh v. R.S.E.B. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1679/93, decided on 2.5.97 ) a similar view has been taken that the widows of E. and M., C.P.F. holders are entitled to the benefit of ex-gratia payment. 17. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds in part. The respondents are directed to make payment of the arrears of ex-gratia payment @ 150/- per month with admissible dearness allowance to the 24 petitioners of Schedule A and B (pages 30 and 31 of the paper book) w.e.f. 1.11.91 within a period of two months from today; failing which the petitioners shall be entitled to recover the amount along with interest @ 18% p.a. It is further directed that the respondents shall continue to pay the ex-gratia payment to those petitioners till they are alive.Petition allowed. *******