1. The petitioner having served with the respondents for thirty years claimed pension. This has been declined. The petitioner challenges this. The petitioner submits that she came to be appointed as a Lady Health Visitor on 21 -12-1962. Her initial posting was at Primary Health Centre at Hiranagar. Order annexure-A makes mention of the petitioner at serial No. 8. This entry is reproduced below:- "8. Miss Gurdeep Kour D/O S. Narayan Singh is appointed as Lady Health Visitor in the pay scale of Rs.140-10-200-EB-10-250 and posted at Primary Health Centre Hiranagar." 2. A further order was passed. It takes notice of the fact that twenty two government servants being declared as quasi, permanent from the date of completion of three years service. In so far as it pertains to the petitioner is reproduced below:- "OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR HEALTH SERVICES JAMMU ORDER The following Lady Health Visitors who have completed three years services in the Medical Department are hereby declared as ˜Quasi Permanent™, from the date of completion of three years shown against each:- 4. Smt. Gurdeep Kour 03-01-1966 Sd/- Deputy Director". 3. The petitioner has continued in service and on attaining the age of superannuation, she has-been relieved of her duties. She has not been paid pension. Reasons See para 7 for this is:- i) That the petitioner is a non-State subject: ii) That the appointment of the petitioner was on contractual basis; and iii) That the petitioner in pursuance of order dated: 01-08-1970 was allowed all the service benefits but the then Deputy Director committed a gross irregularity in confirming the quasi permanent status on the petitioner who was appointed on contractual basis. 4. The petitioner preferred a writ petitioner earlier also. This bears No. OWP 40/99. This was disposed of on 01-02-1999. It has been observed now that the petitioner came to be confirmed quasi permanent status erroneously and therefore she is not entitled to pension. The fact that the petitioner was declared quasi permanent is not being disputed. It is, however, stated that the petitioner being a non-State Subject could not be appointed in the employment of the Stale. It is, accordingly, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to claim pension. 5. The leaned counsel appearing for the State has urged that it is only a State Subject who could be appointed as a Government Servant. It is, however, stated that the petitioner being a non-State Subject could not be appointed in the employment of the Stale. It is, accordingly, submitted that the petitioner is not entitled to claim pension. 5. The leaned counsel appearing for the State has urged that it is only a State Subject who could be appointed as a Government Servant. The petitioner not being a State Subject could not be appointed as quasi permanent government servant and therefore, the question of releasing pension to her would not arise. The petitioner submits that earlier also non-State Subject were appointed and they were granted pension. Reference in this regard is being made to paragraph 10. For facility of reference this paragraph is reproduced below:- "10. That it would be quite relevant to mention here that in the past the respondents/State has in relaxation to Art. 35-B of J&K CSR appointed non-State Subject persons to the State Services on contractual basis and thereafter their services were regularised and they were granted services pension and other pensionery benefits after their retirement. Some of these cases are as under:- a) Dr. William Roberio, a non-State Subject appointed in the Health Department who retired as Director Health Services and was granted pension after retirement. b) Smt. Surya, Lecturer Geography, Higher Secondary School Mubarak Mandi. again a non-State Subject, appointed in Education Department. c) Smt. Balkees, Lecturer, Women College Srinagar. All these non-State Subject persons appointed to the State service were granted service pension and other pensionary benefits after their retirement. Whereas this poor and helpless old lady was singled out, discriminated and deprived of her valuable legal and fundamental right to receive pension by the respondents/State. 6. The stand taken by the State be also noticed. The reply given by the State to The above para is as under:- "10. That in reply to the contents of para No. 10, it is submitted that the petitioner has not placed on record any thing to substantiate her plea so far as the grant of pension to the persons named in the writ petition are concerned. The plea of the petitioner therefore lacks material details and cannot be effectively replied until and unless the petitioner places on record the order under which pension have been granted in favour of the persons named in the writ petition. The plea of the petitioner therefore lacks material details and cannot be effectively replied until and unless the petitioner places on record the order under which pension have been granted in favour of the persons named in the writ petition. It is further submitted that even if the relaxation is given in such cases, same cannot be claimed by the petitioner as a matter of right especially when her case was considered and rejected. The representation of the petitioner has been replied and disposed of by virtue of order impugned.� 7. Provisions of Article 35-B of J&K CSR on which reliance is being placed are also being noticed. These read as under- "35-B. In the case of every new entrant into Government service, the authority empowered to make the appointment should certify that the person appointed is a hereditary State Subject. The Accountant General should not pass pay bills of such Government servant without definite orders of Government in absence of a certificate in Treasury Form No. Miscellaneous 51 from the Revenue authorities noted below in whose charge the candidate for Government service resides, to the effect that the candidate is a hereditary State Subject within the meaning of Government Order dated: 31st January, 1927." 8. A perusal of the above regulation would indicate that the use of words ˜the Accountant General should not pass pay bills™ cannot be held to be mandatory. In any case the Government in the exercise of its executive power vested in it could relax the conditions of these rules also. This has been done in this case. After having gone through the pleadings of the parties, it becomes apparent that the petitioner was appointed initially as a Lady Health Visitor. She was given quasi permanent status. This happened on 01-08-1970. Therefore, it is too late for the State to contend that order passed in favour of the petitioner was passed erroneously. The plea of equitable estopple would step-in. Had the petitioner not been given the quasi permanent status, she could have opted to serve some other Organization or some other authority. The petitioner was put into a situation which led her to believe that as the quasi permanent employee she would be entitled to pension. A valuable right accrued to her. Non-State Subjects arc being given pension; this is adverted to in para 10 of the petition. The petitioner was put into a situation which led her to believe that as the quasi permanent employee she would be entitled to pension. A valuable right accrued to her. Non-State Subjects arc being given pension; this is adverted to in para 10 of the petition. To the specific mention indicated in the petition, there is no specific denial. Even otherwise nothing prevented the State from relaxing the Rule. If this be the position then the plea taken by the State that the petitioner was conferred quasi permanent status erroneously cannot be accepted. The petitioner in her capacity as quasi permanent employee is entitled to all those privilege which are available to a quasi permanent employee. The petitioner is accordingly held entitled to pension. This petition is allowed. Let the pension be released within a period of two months. In case payment is not made within the period stipulated then (he petitioner would be entitled to interest at the rate of 12%. Disposed of accordingly.