JUDGMENT NIRMAL YADAV, J. 1. The petitioner, wife of Wazir Chand, who was working as Auto Electrician with the erstwhile Haryana State Electricity Board (hereinafter referred to as ‘the HSEB’), has sought issuance of directions by way of writ of mandamus for grant of family pension to her from the date her husband expired and also for quashing of impugned order dated 20.4.2004 (Annexure P-4) vide which the respondent-authorities have rejected the legal notice. 2. The facts, in brief, are that Wazir Chand, husband of the petitioner was appointed as Auto Electrician on work-charge basis with the HSEB on 13.1.1982 and continued working as such upto 4.2.1992. Since his work and conduct was satisfactory, he was medically examined and found fit for regularisation of services. His services were regularised vide letter dated 31.1.1992 and, consequently, he joined as a regular employee with effect from 5.2.1992. He died on 5.9.1992 while working in the office of Chief Engineer, Hydel Project, HPGCL, Yamuna Nagar. After the death of her husband, the petitioner had not been granted any family pension in spite of several oral and written requests made to the respondents. She, therefore, submitted representation dated 11.10.2001 (Annexure P-1) . She made another representation dated 25.7.2002 (Annexure P-2). Since her grievance was not redressed, she served legal notice dated 5.11.2004 (Annexure P-3) and, thereafter, filed C.W.P.No.2416 of 2005 in this Court, which was disposed of vide order dated 14.2.2005 by passing the following order: “Claim of the petitioner is for family pension. By stating her grievance, she had already sent a legal notice, Annexure P/3 dated 5.11.2004 to the authorities concerned. In view of facts mentioned in’ this writ petition, it is disposed of by issuing directions to respondent No.3 to treat legal notice as representation and decide the same, as per law, by passing a speaking order. Needful be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is further directed that while deciding legal notice, referred to above, competent authority shall take note of the ratio of judgment in Sharmila Devi v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Niqam Ltd. and others, 2002(4) SCT-179. If petitioner is found entitled to any relief, the same be given to her within a period of one month thereafter.” 3. It is further directed that while deciding legal notice, referred to above, competent authority shall take note of the ratio of judgment in Sharmila Devi v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Niqam Ltd. and others, 2002(4) SCT-179. If petitioner is found entitled to any relief, the same be given to her within a period of one month thereafter.” 3. In compliance with the aforesaid order of this Court, the respondents have decided the legal notice, but rejected the petitioner’s claim for grant of family pension vide order dated 20.4.2005 (Annexure P-4). 4. The petitioner being aggrieved against the aforesaid order, has filed the present petition. Notice of motion of this petition was issued on 30.5.2005. As per report of the Registry, service is complete. In spite of service having been effected, none appears on behalf of the respondents. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that petitioner’s husband was appointed on work-charge basis on 13.1.1982 and served the department continuously for more than 10 years. Keeping in view his satisfactory work and conduct, the services of the petitioner’s husband were regularised with effect from 31.1.1992 and he joined as a regular employee on 5.2.1992. The petitioner fulfils conditions for grant of family pension, as laid down in Punjab Civil Services Rules as applicable to the Haryana State. He referred to Family Pension Scheme as contained in Note-1 of the Punjab Civil Services, Volume-II, which reads as under: “4. This scheme is administered as below. (i) The family pension is admissible in case of death while in service or after retirement on or after the 1st July, 1964, if at the time of at death, the retired officer was in receipt of a compensation, invalid, retiring or superannuation pension. The family Pension will not be admissible in case of death after retirement if the retired employee at the time of death was in receipt of gratuity only. In case of death while in service a Government employee should have completed a minimum period of one year of continuous service without break.” 5. The learned counsel further argued that the above provisions have been considered by two Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Smt. Savitri Devi v. The State of Haryana and others, 1996(2) Recent Services Judgments 854 and Sharmila Devi v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Niaam Limited, 2002(4) SCT 178. The learned counsel further argued that the above provisions have been considered by two Division Benches of this Court in the cases of Smt. Savitri Devi v. The State of Haryana and others, 1996(2) Recent Services Judgments 854 and Sharmila Devi v. Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Niaam Limited, 2002(4) SCT 178. In Savitri Devi’s case (supra) , the Division Bench held as under: “3. The mandate of the aforementioned provision appears to be that in case the Government servant at the time of entry into service produces a Medical Certificate of Fitness, the Family would be entitled to Family Pension even if he dies within less than one year. Concededly, the husband of the petitioner did submit the Medical Certificate of Fitness, Copy Annexure P-l. 4. The only interpretation which can be placed upon the Scheme as reproduced above is that even if the deceased Government employee does not complete one year of continuous service, his dependents would nevertheless be entitled to the grant of family pension provided the deceased was medically examined and found fit and a Medical Certificate of Fitness is produced before entry into government service from a competent Medical Officer. The completion of one year continuous service is, therefore, wholly irrelevant in view of the phraseology of the family pension Scheme.” The learned counsel, thus, argued that the present petition is squarely covered by above referred judgments of our own High Court and, probably, for that reason, the respondents have chosen not to appear in spite of service having been effected. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record. 7. From the pleadings made in the petition and documents on record, it appears that the husband of the petitioner was ordered to be medically examined and when found fit, he was allowed to join as a regular employee with effect from 5.2.1992. If the petitioner’s husband had not been found fit, the respondents would not have allowed him to join as a regular employee. In the instant writ petition, the respondents were duly served, but they have opted not to appear. Therefore, the averments made by the petitioner can be taken to be correct. 8. In view of the position explained above, we are ‘of the view that ratio of aforesaid two judgments in the cases of Savitri Devi and Sharmila Devi would apply to the instant case. Therefore, the averments made by the petitioner can be taken to be correct. 8. In view of the position explained above, we are ‘of the view that ratio of aforesaid two judgments in the cases of Savitri Devi and Sharmila Devi would apply to the instant case. The petitioner is, therefore, held to be entitled to the grant of family pension as’ admissible under the rules. The respondents are directed to release family pension to the petitioner and make payment of arrears thereof within a period of two months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order.