ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. ( 1 ) HEARD learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel. ( 2 ) PETITIONER Shri Daya Shankar Tiwari was a Class IV employee of B. S. A. V. Inter College, gola, Gorakhpur, which is a recognised institution receiving grant-in-aid from the State government. ( 3 ) SHRI Daya Shankar Tiwari was appointed on 6. 12. 51 and he died on 20. 11. 87 while in service. The State Government issued a Government Order dated 24. 2. 89 providing for the benefit of family pension to non-teaching employees of State-aided Junior High Schools and High Schools institutions namely U. P. Basic Shiksha Parishad. The aforesaid scheme providing for the benefit of family pension under the aforesaid Government Order was made applicable with effect from 1. 1. 1989. The petitioners claim for family pension under the aforesaid Government Order dated 24. 2. 89 has been rejected by the Joint Director of Education vide its order dated 1. 3. 97 on the ground that petitioners husband died on 20. 11. 87 i. e. before 1. 1. 1989. The issue in the writ petition thus is as to whether the petitioner whose husband died on 20. 11. 87 is entitled for the benefit of Government Order dated 24. 2. 1989. The petitioner in the writ petition has relied on a judgment of this Honble Court dated 24. 2. 89 in Writ Petition No. 34835 of 1995, Mahmooda begum (Annexure 3) to the writ petition. ( 4 ) THE aforesaid judgment squarely covers the controversy involved in the present writ petition. ( 5 ) THE petitioner has further relied on another judgment and order dated 25. 9. 97 in Writ Petition no. 23609 of 1995, Smt Akhtari Begum v. Director of Education. The aforesaid judgment again takes the view as above. In both the aforesaid judgments this Honble Court, relying on earlier judgment of this Court held that the petitioner was entitled for the benefit of family pension even though her husband died prior to 1. 1. 1989. ( 6 ) IN view of the above two judgment of this Honble Court petitioner has clearly made out a case for grant of relief prayed for. 1. 1989. ( 6 ) IN view of the above two judgment of this Honble Court petitioner has clearly made out a case for grant of relief prayed for. The Standing Counsel has filed a counter-affidavit on the aforsaid two judgments of this Honble Court referred to above, in paragraph 11 of the counter-affidavit no fact has been submitted as to why the aforesaid judgments be not followed by this Court. ( 7 ) IN view of the aforesaid the order dated 1. 3. 97 passed by Joint Director of Education, gorakhpur, is quashed and the respondents are directed to extend the benefit of family pension as per Government Order dated 24. 3. 89 to the petitioner with effect from 1. 1. 1989. The respondents are directed to make payment of family pension including the arrears within three months of production of certified copy of this order before respondent No. 1. ( 8 ) THE petitioner Counsel has further prayed that a direction be issued to the respondents to pay interest on the arrears of family pension. I am not inclined to grant any direction with regard to payment of interest since the petitioner has laid no foundation in the writ petition regarding the claim of the interest and there is also no prayer for interest. ( 9 ) IT is, however, open to the petitioner to move to the concerned authority praying for grant of interest on the arrear of family pension and if such representation is filed, the respondent may consider it and take appropriate decision within three months from the receipt of certified copy of this order. ( 10 ) THE writ petition is allowed. Parties shall bear their own cost. .