JUDGMENT 1. - By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has claimed Family Pension. 2. As per facts averred in the writ petition the late husband of the petitioner was initially appointed as Mason on daily rate basis and was declared semi permanent on January 1, 1969. On January 1, 1977 although Govind Ram completed 10 years of service yet during his life time he was not made permanent and vide order dated July 17, 1996 Govind Ram was made permanent w.e.f. January 1, 1977. Govind Ram died on December 1, 1978 and amount of Provident Fund was paid to the petitioner. 3. Prior to insertion of Rule 22A by way of amendment in the Rajasthan Public Works Department (B & R) including Gardens Irrigation, Water Works and Ayurvedic Departments Work Charged Employees Service Rules 1964 (for short 1964 Rules) there was no provision for grant of pensionary benefits to employees who retired as work charge employees. The amendment was made vide Notification dated September 17, 1980. It was provided by Rule 22A that a work charged employee having been or on being declared permanent on completing 10 years service shall have the options to elect either to continue to contribute towards contributory provident fund or to opt for pensionary benefits. Sub-clause (iv) of the said rule provided that the option shall have to be exercised in writing within a period of six months from the date of amended rule came into force. Vide Notification dated December 11, 1989 sub-rule (6) was added in Rule 22A, according to which widows of the work charged employees were also given the liberty to exercise such option. 4. The petitioner vide application dated June 26, 1996 (Annexure-3) opted for pension but despite many reminders, the pension was not paid to her. 5. The respondents in their return denied the claim of the petitioner and pleaded that option for pension scheme was given only to those widows whose husbands even though were entitled to exercise such option but before doing so, died. It was also averred that although the amendment was made on December 11, 1989 but it was made effective from September 1, 1982. This was so because period for exercising the option was only provided upto September 1, 1982. It was also averred that although the amendment was made on December 11, 1989 but it was made effective from September 1, 1982. This was so because period for exercising the option was only provided upto September 1, 1982. The widows of the Government Servant died after September 1, 1982 and upto the date of the amendment were given the opportunity to exercise the option. 6. I have pondered over the rival submissions. 7. It will be useful at this juncture to refer to sub-rule (6) of Rule 22A of 1964 Rules which provides as under : "(6) In case an employee eligible to C.P.F. benefits who dies without exercising an option to elect the pension rules along with new family pension benefits before the prescribed date, the Administrative Authority at its discretion may given the benefits of pension rules along with the new family pension rules in lieu of C.P.F. benefits where such a request is specifically made by nominee or nominees validly nominated by the subscriber or in their absence by all the members of the family as defined in the C.P.F. rules. If all these latter are not agreed on making such a request, then the C.P.F. money will be paid to them according to the provisions of the rules in this regard. The above amendment shall be effective from 1.9.82. However, cases otherwise decided in past shall not be reopened." (Emphasis supplied) 8. As already noticed work charged employee on being declared permanent on completion of 10 years service is entitled to opt for pension under sub-rule (1) of Rule 22A. In view of this sub-rule Govind Ram who completed 10 years service was entitled to opt for pension on September 17, 1980 (the date of notification when Rule 22A was inserted in 1964 Rules). But unfortunately Govind Ram died on December 1, 1978 and could not opt for pension. In view of sub-rule (6) of Rule 22A Govind Ram who was eligible for C.P.F. died before opting for pension, therefore the petitioner (widow of Govind Ram) was entitled to opt for pension. Sub-rule (6) was inserted vide amendment dated December 11, 1989 and it was made effective from September 1, 1982 but no time limit for exercising option by the widow of deceased permanent work charged employee was fixed. Sub-rule (6) was inserted vide amendment dated December 11, 1989 and it was made effective from September 1, 1982 but no time limit for exercising option by the widow of deceased permanent work charged employee was fixed. Giving effect to sub-rule (6) from September 1, 1982 does not mean that the widows of those workcharged employees who died prior to September 1, 1982, were excluded from exercising option for pension. I am not impressed with the submissions of learned Additional Advocate General that the widows of the work charged employees died after September 1, 1982 were only entitled to opt for pension. I do not find any difference between two widows of work charged employees, one who died prior to September 1, 1982 and another who died after the said date. Interpretation of sub-rule (6) of Rule 22A, that discriminates between the two widows, cannot be accepted. Language of sub-rule (6) is very clear and it mandates that with effect from September 1, 1982 the widows of deceased work-charged employees who were permanent and eligible for C.P.F. but died without opting for pension, could also exercise option for pension. 9. I am of the considered opinion that in view of sub-rule (6) of Rule 22A, the petitioner was entitled to opt for pension being the widow of eligible permanent work charged employee who died before exercising the option for pension. 10. For the reasons aforementioned, I allow the writ petition and direct the respondents to accord Family Pension to the petitioner as per the relevant rules. After adjusting the amount of C.P.F. the arrears shall be paid to the petitioner within three months from today. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents shall not charge interest on the C.P.F. while making adjustment, so also the petitioner shall not be entitled to any interest on the arrears of pension. There shall be no order as to costs.Petition Allowed. *******