JUDGMENT P.C. Pant, J. 1. By means of this writ petition, moved under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought mandamus commanding the respondents to pay amount of gratuity and family pension for the services rendered by her late husband, 2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband was initially appointed as Assistant Cashier in U. P. Government Roadways on 29.7.1965. The said post was made pensionable vide order dated 5.9.1968 (copy Annexure-1 to the writ petition), passed by the Transport Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh. The services of the husband of the petitioner were confirmed w.e.f. 1.4.1972 vide order dated 5.2.1973 passed by the Government. On 1.6.1972 a new body Corporate, U. P, State Road Transport Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as U.P.S.R.T.C.) was established in place of a Government Department known as U. P. Government Roadways. Even after absorption of the staff of Government Roadways in U.P.S.R.T.C., the services of the husband of the petitioner remained pensionable as per the order dated 28.2.1984 (copy Annexure-2 to the writ petition). The husband of the petitioner died on 27.12.1999 when he was in service with U.P.S.R.T.C. as Head Cashier. After the death of her husband, petitioner submitted papers relating to family pension which were forwarded by respondent No. 3 on 27.3.2000. Copy of the statement of account submitted therewith is annexed as Annexure-3 to the writ petition. The Assistant Manager (Pension) of U.P.S.R.T.C. Lucknow vide his letter dated 17.4.2000 made certain queries from respondent No. 3 regarding the claim of the petitioner and the same were replied by respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 19.5.2000 (copy Annexure-5 to the writ petition). Thereafter, respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 22.6.2000 also made certain queries which were also replied by respondent No. 3 vide letter dated 24.8.2000 (copy Annexure-7 to the writ petition). The respondent Nos. 1 and 2 did not pass any orders on the claim of the petitioner for family pension and gratuity even after representations made by her. Hence the writ petition. 3. Respondents filed a counter-affidavit and admitted that the husband of the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Cashier on 29.7.1965 but it has been denied if he was posted on pensionable posts. Hence the writ petition. 3. Respondents filed a counter-affidavit and admitted that the husband of the petitioner was appointed on the post of Assistant Cashier on 29.7.1965 but it has been denied if he was posted on pensionable posts. It is alleged in the counter-affidavit that as per the Government order dated 5.9.1968, the Assistant Cashier was entitled to pensionary benefits if he has worked under General Manager, Service Manager or Assistant Regional Manager regularly. The deponent in the counter-affidavit states that vide letter dated 27.12.2002 it was declared that the services of the husband of the petitioner were not pensionable (copy Annexure-C.A. 2 to the counter-affidavit). It is alleged that the letter of Regional Manager dated 28.2.1984 was incorrect giving confirmation with retrospective effect dated 1.4.1972 as such the mistake was rectified by cancelling said order dated 8.1.2003 (copy Annexure C.A. 3 to the counter-affidavit). The respondents have taken up a case that in the circumstances now the petitioner is not entitled to any family pension and the gratuity will be paid as per the provisions of Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 for which she had got alternative remedy under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972. 4. I heard Mr. B.D. Upadhyaya, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents. 5. The short question for consideration before this Court is whether the services of the petitioner's husband were pensionable and have the respondents wrongly denied the family pension and gratuity to the petitioner? 6. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner entered into the service on 29.7.1965 as Assistant Cashier with U. P. Government Roadways. It is also not disputed that later on in the year 1972, U.P.S.R.T.C. came into existence in place of U. P. Government Roadways and the staff was absorbed in the new Corporation. It is also not denied that vide order dated 5.9.1968 (copy Annexure-1 to the writ petition), the Transport Commissioner, Uttar Pradesh declared the posts which are pensionable. The relevant extract of said letter is being reproduced below : "I have the honour to say that the matter for declaring certain categories of posts of Cashiers/ Assistant Cashiers remained under consideration of the Government. In Government order No. 2753/XXX-AG-16876 dated 10.7.1968 Cashier/ Assistant Cashier who may be posted in the office of the General Managers/ Assistant General Managers and Service Managers may be treated as pension able. In Government order No. 2753/XXX-AG-16876 dated 10.7.1968 Cashier/ Assistant Cashier who may be posted in the office of the General Managers/ Assistant General Managers and Service Managers may be treated as pension able. The posts of Cashiers/Assistant Cashiers at the Depots and Bus Station may be treated as non-pensionable. The posts of Store Keeper and Asstt. Store Keeper may be treated as non-pensionable. You are, therefore, requested to dispose of all the cases of retired Cashiers, Assistant Cashiers/Store Keepers and Asstt Store Keeper in the light of the above Government order.......". 7. The above letter of Transport Commissioner was addressed to all General Managers of Uttar Pradesh Government Roadways. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the said letter dated 5.9.1968 claimed that the services of the petitioner's husband were pensionable as he was not employee of any Depot or Bus Station. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the office order dated February 28, 1984 by which husband of the petitioner while working in the Tanakpur Region was confirmed in the service. The said order is being reproduced below : "OFFICE ORDER Shri Brij Mohan Pant. S/o Shri Govind Ballabh Pant temporary incumbent of U. P. Government Roadways, Tanakpur Region working in U. P. State Road Transport Corporation is hereby made permanent on the pensionable post of Asstt. Cashier in the scale of pay Rs. 100-4-120-EB-5-145-EB-5-170-EB-6-180 w.e.f. 1.4.1972 against the permanent post sanctioned by the Government G. O. No. 100-XXX-2-608 N/72 dated 5.2.1973. Regional Manager, U. P. State Road Transport Corporation Pithoragarh" 8. Relying on said letter submissions were made on behalf of the petitioner that the claim of the petitioner was wrongly refused by the respondents for family pension as well as for the gratuity. In reply to this, Mr. A.N. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents argued that the above order dated February 28, 1984 was wrong and the same was cancelled by order dated 8.1.2003 (copy Annexure C.A. 3 to the counter-affidavit) which is being reproduced below : 9. The above order cancelling the order of confirmation of the year 1984 of the deceased employee is not tenable in law as much as the right which is accrued to the employee is being deprived after his death. The above order cancelling the order of confirmation of the year 1984 of the deceased employee is not tenable in law as much as the right which is accrued to the employee is being deprived after his death. Order which was passed in the year 1984 appears to have been cancelled after a period of 19 years just to deprive the petitioner from family pension for which she submitted her papers, in the year 2000 after death of her husband in the year 1999, without giving her any opportunity of being heard and against the principles of natural justice. 10. As to the payment of gratuity the respondents have not come with clean hands. In the counter-affidavit they say that she is entitled to gratuity but why it was not paid is not being made clear. During the pendency of this writ petition, now it appears that the respondent No. 3 has sent a letter dated January 10, 2003 (copy Annexure C.A. 4 to the counter-affidavit) to his Assistant Regional Manager for sending the application of the petitioner for payment of gratuity. 11. On behalf of the respondents my attention was drawn to the Annual Confidential Report of the. deceased employee and efforts were made to convince, this Court that he was attached with the Regional Manager of the U.P.S.R.T.C., as such his services was not pensionable. This Court is unable to accept this contention for the reason that copy of the order dated March 18, 1972 (copy Annexure R.A. 3 to the rejoinder-affidavit) shows that on account of one Bachi Singh Mewari going on leave the husband of the petitioner was asked to work during the leave period of another employee in the Tanakpur Station. That does not establish, if he was posted there permanently. As against this by another copy of letter dated 28th March, 1972 it is made clear by the General Manager that such temporary posting will have no impact in the service condition of the employee. Not only this, a Government order dated 5.7.1972 issued by the Transport Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh in its para 2 makes it very clear that the service conditions of those employees who were in the service with the U. P. Government Roadways before June 7, 1972 shall remain unaffected. Not only this, a Government order dated 5.7.1972 issued by the Transport Commissioner and Secretary to the Government of Uttar Pradesh in its para 2 makes it very clear that the service conditions of those employees who were in the service with the U. P. Government Roadways before June 7, 1972 shall remain unaffected. That being so any order passed affecting the pensionable service of the husband of the petitioner, who was an employee of the year 1965 are bad in law. 12. In view of above discussion denial of family pension and gratuity by the respondents to the petitioner is not only arbitrary but also violative of the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, as such the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Writ petition is accordingly allowed. 13. The order dated 8.1.2003 passed by the Regional Manager, U.P.S.R.T.C. Tanakpur cancelling the order dated 28.2.1984, is quashed. A writ in the nature of mandamus is hereby issued to the respondents to pay the petitioner the family pension and the gratuity due to her within a period of three months from today. No order as to costs.