Honble CHAUHAN, J.–The instant writ petition has been filed for quashing the provisions of Rule 268-F of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 for short, ``the Rules, 1951) and for quashing of the order dated 19.6.92 (Annexure 2), by which petitioners claim for full amount of family pension has been rejected. (2). The facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that petitioners husband died while in service with the respondents and had completed the qualified service for entitlement of pension under the law. As per the provisions of family pension contained in rule 268 and onwards in the Rules, 1951, petitioner was granted provisional family pension to the extent of 75% of the maximum amount of family pension, admissible under the Rules, which was subsequently enhanced to the full amount and petitioner was paid Rs. 1000/-per month. As the deceased employee had two wives and the another wife had died but her minor son was alive, respondents directed to pay half of the family pension to the minor son. In December, 1992, the minor son became major and, thus, he was held to be disentitled for family pension any more and the same was not reimbursed to the petitioner/widow. Hence this writ petition. (3). The provisions governing `family pension in such matters are provided under Rule 268-F of the Rules, 1951, which read as under:- `Order of allotment: A pension sanctioned under this Chapter will be allowed: (a) to a widow if the deceased was a male Government servant provided that where the Government servant is survived by more than one widow, the pension will be paid to them in equal shares. On the death of a widow, her share of the pension will become payable to her eligible minor child. If at the time of her death a widow leaves no eligible minor child, the payment of her share of the pension will be cease, provided further that where a Government servant is survived by a widow but has left behind an eligible minor child from another wife, the eligible minor child will be paid the share of the pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of the Government servant; or... (4). (4). Petitioner"s case is that the liability of the employer-respondent is fixed according to the period of service rendered by the employee and it is immaterial as how many recipients are there and in such a case if the minor son by another wife has become disentitled to continue to get the pension because of attaining the majority, the petitioner becomes entitled to receive the full amount of family pension. On the other hand, Mr. Prakash Tatia, learned counsel for respondent-Department has submitted that petitioners entitlement was only to get a share in the pension and once the other sharer has either become disentitled or no more alive, the property would devolve to the State as the recipient of that share is no more entitled/ alive and petitioner cannot claim any right in such an eventuality. (5). It is settled proposition of law that pension is not a bounty or gratituous payment dependable upon the sweet will or grace of the employer and it can be claimed as a matter of right and the right to get pension can be enforced through court. The right to get pension is not dependant upon the discretion of the employer but is governed by the statutory rules and whoever is entitled for the same, has a right to claim it. (6). Article 39 (2) of the Constitution requires the State to secure that the health and strength of the employees, men, women or children, are not abused and the citizen are not forced by economic necessity to enter a vocations unsuited to their age. Article 41 of the Constitution obligates the State within the limits of its economic capacity to provide for right to work and to provide help in cases of old age, sickness and disablement. A right to pension arises when there is a termination of service. This happens when a person retires or resigns or on his death. Thus, it is one of these contingencies that the right will arise with regard to grant of pension. Pension is earned by the employee for the service rendered to fall-back after retirement. It is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied as it is the property of the employee. (Vide Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar (1); State of Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh (2); D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India & Ors. Pension is earned by the employee for the service rendered to fall-back after retirement. It is a right attached to the office and cannot be arbitrarily denied as it is the property of the employee. (Vide Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar (1); State of Punjab vs. Iqbal Singh (2); D.S. Nakara vs. Union of India & Ors. (3); Vasant Gangaramsa Chandan vs. State of Maharastra & Ors. (4); and Union of India vs. Syed Sarwar Ali & Ors. (5). (7). Thus, the right to get pension depends upon the statutory rules and in case of death of the employee, the Rules, 1951 prescribe a particular procedure and for quantum of pension amount. The entitlement of `family member of the deceased employee is fixed according to the last drawn pay and duration of service of the deceased employee. The quantum of liability is fixed irrespective of number of recipients of pension as members of the family. The number of family member may also vary according to circumstances and may also change on a particular eventuality. If a widow gets the family pension and she re-marriage, she will cease to be a member of the family of the deceased employee and would not be able to claim the same after re-marriage. The mother and father of the deceased employee, if have not been included in the definition of the `family members under the statutory rules, would not be able to claim any share in the family pension. (Vide State of Gujrat vs. Sarti Devi ( AIR 1996 SC 937 ); State of J & K vs. Balraj Sharma & Ors. (7); M. Jameela Beevi vs. S. Balgopala Pillai (8); and State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Kedar Nath Sood & Anr. (9). (8). Under the law if the widow or any other member of the deceased-employees family has been made entitled to a particular benefit, he cannot be deprived of the same on any pretext what so ever for the reason that "community has no right to enrich itself by deliberately taking away the property of any of its members" in such circumstances. The contentions raised by Mr. Tatia are not worth considering as pension is not that kind of property which will devolve upon State if there is no survivor to inherit it. The contentions raised by Mr. Tatia are not worth considering as pension is not that kind of property which will devolve upon State if there is no survivor to inherit it. Pension is a right to be given to a particular class of persons and for that a hierarchy creating a preferential right is provided in the Rules itself. When one of the family member entitled to a share in pension dies or becomes disentitled for attaining majority, the question of taking away back the amount of share by escheat is not permissible for the reason that the other family member is entitled for the full amount of pension. Moreso, question of taking away by escheat comes only and only if there is nobody to succeed the property of the deceased owner. The said principle is not applicable in case of pension though pension is property but property rights stand extinguished on the death of the person. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be said by any means that as the amount of pension stood divided by virtue of provisions of rule 268-C (2-a) read with rule 268-C (3-a) of the Rules, 1951, and one of the recipients is not alive or ceases to be entitled to get the pension, the other recipient cannot have any grievance as he is continuing to get the shore for which he/she was entitled to. The interpretation of the rules, given by the respondents, cannot be accepted as the employer cannot be permitted to reduce its liability unilaterally. Therefore, the rules involved herein require a reading-down that in case one of the recipients dies or ceases to be entitled to continue to get family pension, the other recipient shall be entitled for full amount of family pension whatever is due on a particular time, as per the rules. (9). Thus, in view of the above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.6.92 (Annexure 2) is quashed and petitioner is held entitled for entire amount of family pension whatever is due in accordance with law. As the amount of family pension whatever is due in accordance with law. (9). Thus, in view of the above, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated 19.6.92 (Annexure 2) is quashed and petitioner is held entitled for entire amount of family pension whatever is due in accordance with law. As the amount of family pension whatever is due in accordance with law. As the amount of family pension is variable from time to time, respondents are directed to determine as what was their liability on the date of attaining majority by other family member and the same shall be paid to the petitioner alongwith arrears, if any, within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, alongwith interest @ 10% per annum. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.