Judgment Ajay Rastogi J.-At joint request and with consent of parties, matter has been finally heard and disposed of at admission stage. 2. Senior citizen Smt. Kamla Verma widow of Shri P.D. Verma has filed instant petition, claiming gratuity and pensionary benefits alongwith interest, for services rendered by her husband as Lecturer in the State Government from 10.1953 to 09.07.1963. 3. Her husband (P.D. Verma) was in Government service from 10.1953 and retired as Lecturer on 09.07.1963. Thereafter he was absorbed in University of Rajasthan w.e.f. 10.07.1963 and transferred subject to terms of order dated 07.07.1962 of Education Department of State Government. He finally retired from service of the University and died on 07.07.1988. 4. Rajasthan Rajya Sthantatrik Karamchari Kalayn Parishad and others preferred CWP 652/1988 with the prayer that all officers who served for less than 10 years or more are entitled for retrial benefits of their service rendered in the Government but State Government failed to consider it. While disposing of writ petition, this Court directed State Government that those who have served Government for 10 years are entitled for pensionary benefits and others who have not completed 10 years service like K.D. Ramdeo, they be considered for gratuity and other benefits available under rules. 5. After Judgment was passed by this Court, petitioner also made representation but was rejected by respondents only on premise that since her husband did not complete 10 years of service, benefits whereof as per her request, are not admissible. Hence this petition. 6. Counsel for petitioner submits that Chapters XXII & XXIII-A of Rajasthan Civil Service Rules deal with Pension & New Family Pension to family of an officer who served Government. Chapter XXII of RSR deals with pension apart from Gratuity, death-cum-retirement gratuity. Rule 256, RSR, specifically deal with service gratuity and Rule 257 with Death-cum-Retirement Gratuity. Counsel submits that petitioner is entitled for pension on the basis of service rendered by her husband under Rule 268-B(b) of RSR which relates to New Family pension and denial of the same is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution; and mere non-completion of 10 years of service by her husband is not an impediment or a bar for benefits which she is entitled for under Chapters XXII & XXIII-A. In support of his contentions, Counsel placed reliance upon decision of this Court rendered on 07.04.2004 in CWP 652/88 (Supra). 7. 7. Respondents in their reply inter-alia averred that since her husband was not member of Rajasthan Rajya Sthantarik Karamchari Kalyan Parishad and party to that petition; as such whatever observed by this Court while deciding CWP 652/88 could not have been extended to her and so far as case of K.D. Ramdev is concerned, benefits were extended to him because of order of this Court. 8. I have considered contentions of Counsel for parties and with their assistance examined material on record. I find that no justification has been put forward by respondents in their reply as to why benefits, for which petitioner is entitled for services rendered by her husband for period of 9 years seven months, have not been extended, which is legally admissible under Chapters XXII & XXIII-A of RSR. A bare reading of Scheme of Pension rules shows that Chapters XXII & XXIII-A of RSR deals with Pension & new family pension and Rules 256 and 257 provide for service gratuity and death-cum retirement gratuity to Government servants and their family, who have even rendered less than 10 years of service, and under these rules they are entitled for service gratuity and death-cum-retirement gratuity, as the case may be, as per Table provided in Annexure-A appended thereto, which postulates procedure for computation of such gratuity etc. Rule 257 of RSR clearly provides procedure-according to which death cum retirement gratuity is payable to such Government servants who completed five years of service. Similarly, as regards family pension, in terms of Chapter XXII-A of RSR, Rule 268-B (b) clearly provides that after retirement if at the time of death, Government servant was in receipt of compensation, invalid, retiring or superannuation pension, family pension shall be granted to family of an officer. 9. This fact is not in dispute that husband of petitioner remained in Government service from 10.1953 to 09.07.1963 and accordingly he rendered Government service for 9 years and 7 months. In absence of any justification put forward by respondents, in my opinion, denial of benefits as claimed by petitioner is totally arbitrary and in violation not only of Scheme of aforesaid Pension Rules but also of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 10. Consequently, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed alongwith stay petition. In absence of any justification put forward by respondents, in my opinion, denial of benefits as claimed by petitioner is totally arbitrary and in violation not only of Scheme of aforesaid Pension Rules but also of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution. 10. Consequently, this writ petition succeeds and is allowed alongwith stay petition. Respondents are directed to consider case of petitioner and release service gratuity and death-cum-retirement gratuity alongwith family pension under Chapters XXII & XXIII-A of RSR (Supra), by passing appropriate orders for sanction whereof within two months and arrears be paid to her within one month thereafter. No costs