Judgment :- Mrs.Prabha Sridevan, J. The appellant is a poor woman, who has been knocking in vain on the doors of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board asking for family pension, to which she is entitled to, upon the death of her husband on 1. 1988, while in service as watchman “ in the said Board. 2. The Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board was established under the Tamil Nadu Slum Areas Improvement and Clearance Act, 1971. Under Sec.37 of the Act, the Board prescribe the pay and the other conditions of service of its employees. Sec.44 reads as follows: “It shall be the duty of the Board to comply with such directions as the Government may from time to time issue generally in regard to any particular matter.” 3. In 1977, the Commissioner and Secretary to Government issued G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 11. 1977, under which all provincialised work charged employees of the various departments were brought to regular establishments and allowed certain benefits. The relevant paragraph is extracted hereunder: “(5) (i) All provincialised work charged employees who are in the pay scales of Rs.140-3-155-4-175-5-210 and above will be brought to regular establishment and consequently be allowed the following additional benefits as admissible to the Non-gazetted Government Servants. .(a) Pension, Family Pension, Death-cum-Retirement, Gratuity as admissible under the Madras Liberalized Pension Rules: .(b) Accumulation of earned leave upto 180 days instead of 90 days medical and other unearned leave benefits as admissible under Tamil Nadu Leave Rules. .(c) General Provident Fund in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund. .(d) Maternity Leave. .(ii) All provincialised work charged employees who are in the scale lower than Rs.140-3-155-4-175-5-210 will be brought to regular establishment and consequently be allowed the following additional benefits as applicable to the last grade servants of Government. .(a) Pension, Family Pension, Death-cum-Retirement, Gratuity as admissible under the Madras Liberalized Pension Rules. .(b) General Provident Fund in lieu of Contributory Provident Fund; .(c) Leave benefits as admissible under Tamil Nadu Leave Rules; .(d) On completion of 15 years of service they will become eligible for the leave benefits admissible to non-gazetted Government Servants; .(e) Maternity leave. Subsequently, on 25. 1960, the Deputy Secretary to Government Finance Department issued a letter to all Secretaries to Government and all Heads of Department under letter No.61986/PEN/80-1 Finance (Pension) dated 25. 1980. In this letter, it is stated that the Government has ordered with effect from 1. Subsequently, on 25. 1960, the Deputy Secretary to Government Finance Department issued a letter to all Secretaries to Government and all Heads of Department under letter No.61986/PEN/80-1 Finance (Pension) dated 25. 1980. In this letter, it is stated that the Government has ordered with effect from 1. 1977 that all provincialised work charged employees on that date and nonprovincialised employees, who had completed five years of continuous service should be brought to regular establishment. Reference was made to the Government Order mentioned above. In para.3 of the said letter, it was stated as follows: “I, therefore, request you to kindly ensure that the orders bringing work charged personnel to regular establishment should invariably refer to Finance Departments Memorandum No.2278/Pension 77-1, dated 12. 1977 and that the benefits envisaged in it are allowed to other employees without delay. sd/- Deputy Secretary to Govt.” 4. Petitioners husband Thiru.K.Ethirajulu was working in Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board as a ‘Watchman’ in Division-VI, Madras-5. According to the petitioner, he was brought into the provincial establishment with effect from 20.1.1972, by order of the Executive Engineer dated 22. 1972. He was fixed in a time scale of pay at Rs.250-5-330-10-400. While in service, he died on 1. 1988 leaving the petitioner and her son as his sole heirs. At that time, he was earning a basic pay of Rs.650. Since by virtue of G.O.Ms.No.51, dated 11. 1977, she was entitled to Family Pension. She made several representations to the respondent-Board. But with no success. She therefore approached this Hon’ble Court seeking writ of mandamus to direct the Board to pay her family pension with effect from 1. 1988. 5. To this, the Board filed their counter stating that the writ petitioner had been given a sum of Rs.4,000 as gratuity and a sum of Rs.20,000 under the Group Insurance Scheme and that the son had also been, employed on compassionate grounds. According to the Board, the petitioner was not entitled to the family pension as per the Boards circular dated 25. 1990, which stated as follows: “As regards the provincialised work charged personnel who were not brought to regular establishment, that is those who retired prior to 212. 1988 without getting into regular establishment as it is, they are not entitled to the pensionary benefits under Pension Rules. 1990, which stated as follows: “As regards the provincialised work charged personnel who were not brought to regular establishment, that is those who retired prior to 212. 1988 without getting into regular establishment as it is, they are not entitled to the pensionary benefits under Pension Rules. read with G.O.Ms.No.51, Finance and other follow up orders mentioned above, but such persons may be granted the gratuity admissible under Tamil Nadu Retiring and invalid gratuities (Non Pensionable Establishment) Rules, 1941 including for the non-provincialised service.” And since the petitioners husband had died on 1. 1988 without being brought to the regular establishment he was not eligible for pension. 6. The learned single Judge after hearing both the counsels held that the husband of the petitioner having opted for a non-pensionable job and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit under the pension scheme and dismissed the writ petition. 7. In the present appeal, in addition to the G.O. and the other Government proceedings to above, some other Government Orders and letters were also produced. They are Memo No.22478/Pension/77-1, dated 12. 1977 issued by the Finance Pension Department. This letter Clarifies the G.O. dated 11. 1977 referred to above. The relevant extracts are as follows: .• (i) The work charged personnel who will be brought to regular establishment consequent on the issue of the G.O., cited will be eligible for superannuation benefits as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Liberalised Pension Rules. The G.O. will apply to those who retire on or after 312. 1976. 1. 1977. .• (ii) … .• (iii) …. 8. It is evident from the records produced before us that the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board had been dragging its feet with regard to sanctioning pensionary benefits to its employees. This had resulted in a letter of the Deputy Secretary to Government, Housing and urban Development Department dated 23. 1990 issued to the Chairman of the Board. The relevant portion is extracted hereunder: “I am directed to state that in the Government Order 1st cited it has been specifically stipulated that orders issued in G.O.Ms.No.51, Finance (Fr.II), dated 11. 1977 should be adhered to Instructions issued in Government Memo No.22478/Pen/77-1, Finance, dated 12. 1977 and Government letter No.61986/Pen/80-1, Finance, dated 25. 1980 are only further instructions to G.O.Ms.No.51, Finance (FR.II), dated 11. 1977. 1977 should be adhered to Instructions issued in Government Memo No.22478/Pen/77-1, Finance, dated 12. 1977 and Government letter No.61986/Pen/80-1, Finance, dated 25. 1980 are only further instructions to G.O.Ms.No.51, Finance (FR.II), dated 11. 1977. Hence it is not clear why the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board could not follow these rules which the Tamil Nadu Housing Board has been able to follow and sanction pension etc., to the W.C.E. personnel brought to regular service according to these rules. I am to state that the negligence on the part of the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board has only resulted in abnormal delay in the payment, of Pension/Family Pension to the W.C.E. Personnel/Families of W.C.E. Personnel brought to regular service. I am, therefore, to request you to adopt the Government Memo No.22478/Pension/77-1, Finance dated 12. 1977 and Government letter No.61986/Pension/80-1, Finance, dated 25. 1980 in the Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board without any further delay.” 9. The Board had also framed certain rules to govern the conditions of service of its servants by G.O.Ms.No.1750, Housing and Urban Development, dated 212. 1988 called Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board work charged Establishment Service Rules, 1988, hereinafter refereed to as Rules 1988. On perusal of these rules, it is seen that this would apply to the servants of the Board of the provincialised, non-provincialised and nominal muster roll under the work charged establishment. Rule 10 refers to the Constitution of the service listing the categories of post. Category-10 is ‘watchman’. Rule 8 refers to the “Scale of pay” and the watchman, who is listed as category-10 is entitled to scale of pay 450-10-510-15-720. Rule 10 refers to pension and it states clearly that the holders of the post mentioned in Rule 3 are entitled to pension and death-cum-retirement Gratuity, as per the Board Rules, 1980. 10. This is really an unfortunate case. The fact is that the petitioner has made several representations to the respondent asking for family pension. Some of them have been filed in the typed set of papers. But for some reason, these representations did not bear any fruit, though the G.O. dated 11. 1977 in no uncertain terms directs that the work charged employees be brought to regular establishment entitling them to the various benefits including inter alia family pension. .11. Again on 12. Some of them have been filed in the typed set of papers. But for some reason, these representations did not bear any fruit, though the G.O. dated 11. 1977 in no uncertain terms directs that the work charged employees be brought to regular establishment entitling them to the various benefits including inter alia family pension. .11. Again on 12. 1977, the Government has issued a letter, which has been referred to above, which states that the work charged personnel will be brought to regular establishment on the issue of G.O. dated 11. 1977. In 1980, the Deputy Secretary to Government, Urban Department directs the Government and other Heads of Departments to ensure that the employees are given the benefits referred to in the G.Os. dated 11. 1977 and 12. 1977 and 25. 1980. So, the petitioners husband, having been a provincialised work charged employee, ought to have been brought under the regular establishment, as per the G.O. dated 11. 1977. The letter dated 23. 1990 referred to in para.8 above, clearly demonstrates the Governments insistence that G.Os. dated 11. 1977 and 12. 1977 have to be strictly adhered to. It also shows that the Government in fact reprimanded the Board for negligence in following the instructions. As early as 24. 1980, the Government had stipulated that these instructions regarding pension have to be followed. 12. It appears that the Board has delayed the sanctioning of pension of family pension, as the case may be, to its personnel. The petitioners husband had worked for 16 years and in the counter too it is stated that orders were passed by the Board to provincialised his service. As per the G.O. dated 11. 1977, such employees should be brought to regular establishment. If the Board had not done so from 1977 to 1988 (the year of employees death) for that, the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer. .13. The counsel for the appellant cited the decisions reported in Yeshwant Hari Katakka v. Union of India , 1995 Lab.I.C. 718(S.C.) which dealt with a Government Servant, who had put in service for 16 1/2 years. There was nothing on record to show that he was not made permanent. Supreme Court held that this amounted to very unfair treatment. .13. The counsel for the appellant cited the decisions reported in Yeshwant Hari Katakka v. Union of India , 1995 Lab.I.C. 718(S.C.) which dealt with a Government Servant, who had put in service for 16 1/2 years. There was nothing on record to show that he was not made permanent. Supreme Court held that this amounted to very unfair treatment. It held: .“It would be travesty of justice if the appellant is denied the pensionary benefits simply on the ground that he was not permanent employee of the Government.” 14. The counsel for the respondent apart from referring to the Boards Circular dated 25. 1990, which refers to the cut off date, could really not demonstrate why the petitioner is not entitled to family pension. The Governments decision to give family pension to the provincialised work charged employees had been communicated to the Board in 1977. This direction has been followed up by the subsequent G.Os. and letters. By the time he died, the petitioners husband had completed 16 years of service in the Board. In this background to fix 212. 1988 as a cut off date for eligibility of pension, family pension and other benefits merely because the Rules were framed on that date is arbitrary. Sec.44 of the Act, under which the Board came into being, declares that it is the duty of the Board to comply with the directions of the Government. The Government has clearly directed the Board by the G.O. dated 11. 1977 to allow the various benefits set out in the said G.O. to its employees. The petitioners husband died 11 years thereafter. The Board had no reason not to comply with, these directions, and in fact cannot disregard the Governments instructions as per Sec.44 of the Act. 15. The respondent Board is therefore directed to process the application of the appellant to sanction the family pension due to her from 1. 1988 without delay, as per the rules. If any amount already paid to her has to be adjusted in the amount now payable to her as arrears of family pension. the same may be adjusted. The Board is directed to continue to pay the appellant her family pension every month till her life time. 16. The writ appeal is therefore allowed. No order as to costs.