Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. With the consent of counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final disposal at motion stage itself. 2. The husband of the petitioner was working with the Haryana State Electricity Board (now Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Ltd.) on work charged basis from 1.6.1967. His services were regularised on 27.6.1970. At the time of his death, he was working as regular ALM. The petitioner submitted the claim for family pension, but the same was not granted. Ultimately, the petitioner served a legal notice on 7.11.2003. When no decision was taken on the same, the petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 283 of 2004 which was disposed of by this Court by order dated 9.1.2004. The respondents were directed to treat the legal notice as a representation and take a decision thereon within a period of four months. It was also directed that if the petitioners claim is to be denied, the respondents should pass a speaking order and communicate the same to the petitioner. In compliance of the orders passed by this Court, the respondents have conveyed a decision dated 27.4.2004 rejecting the claim of the petitioner. It has been stated that at the time of the death of the husband of the petitioner, the total service to the credit of the deceased was four years and one day i.e. less than S years. Minimum service required for grant of family pension under the Civil Service Rules Vol.11 is five years. The respondents have distinguished the judgments of this Court passed in the case of Savitri Devi v. State of Haryana and Ors. 1996(2) R.S.J. 854 and Smt. Sharmila Devi v. UHBVL and Ors. 2002(2) S.C.T. 179 on the ground that at the relevant time, under the instructions, the minimum qualifying service required was of only one year. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgments of this Court. Learned Counsel has also relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court passed in C.W.P. No. 12449 of 2003 decided on 8.4.2005. 3. The respondents have filed a written statement. They have not denied the service details as given by the petitioner in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. Learned Counsel has also relied on the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court passed in C.W.P. No. 12449 of 2003 decided on 8.4.2005. 3. The respondents have filed a written statement. They have not denied the service details as given by the petitioner in paragraph 2 of the writ petition. It is stated that at the time of the death of the husband of the petitioner in the year 1976, minimum qualifying service for eligibility of pension was five years service, under Clause 4(i) of the Pension Scheme. Qualifying period of five years was reduced to one year by Notification dated 28.9.1979. Subsequently, vide Notification dated 4.2.1992, even the service rendered by a work charged employee was also made reckonable towards retiral benefits. It is also stated that the petitioner had been appointed on compassionate ground as a Peon in January, 1978. She would, therefore, not be entitled to any family pension. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the paper-book. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to family pension under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 . Under Rule 4 of the aforesaid Scheme, minimum service required is of one year. In the case of Smt. Savitri Devi (supra), the Scheme has been interpreted by the Division Bench and it has been held that even less than one year service is enough for the grant of family pension. The respondents are duty bound to implement the judgment. The aforesaid judgment has been followed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sharmila Devi (supra). In the judgment rendered in Smt. Savitri Devi (supra), it has been 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. 6. Following the aforesaid judgment rendered in Smt. Savitri Devi (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (S.S. Nijjar, J.) was a member, has also allowed C.W.P. No. 12449 of 2003 (Jagwati and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.). In our opinion, the matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. 7. 6. Following the aforesaid judgment rendered in Smt. Savitri Devi (supra), a Division Bench of this Court, of which one of us (S.S. Nijjar, J.) was a member, has also allowed C.W.P. No. 12449 of 2003 (Jagwati and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.). In our opinion, the matter is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to release the family pension alongwith the arrears to the petitioner within a period of three months of the receipt of a certified copy of this order. No costs.