Heard Mr. Kh. Binoykumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. S. Suresh, learned Govt. Advocate for the respondent Nos.1 and 4 as well as Mr. N. Ibotombi, learned CGSC for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5. 2. Mr. Kh. Binoykumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the present case is squarely covered by the Judgment and order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 1.10.2001 passed in Writ Appeal No. 154 of 1998 and batch. The short factual matrix of the petitioner's case is that the petitioner's husband was initially appointed as a Work-charged Belder in the Public Works Department, Govt. of Manipur on 01.08.1959. Thereafter, the service of the petitioner's husband as a Work-charged Belder had been confirmed vide Office Order No.690 with effect from 09.01.1974, copy of which is available at Annexure-A/3 to the present writ petition. 3. While the petitioner's husband was serving as a confirmed Work-charged Belder, he died on 22.09.1976. It is admitted fact that the rule called “Terminal Benefit for Work-charged Staff of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI/ Electricity, Manipur, Rules, 1978” had been amended from time to time. By the order of the Governor of Manipur dated 06.06.1991, Governor of Manipur was pleased to amend the Rule 6 (B) of the Terminal Benefit of the Work-charged for the Staff of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI/ Electricity, Manipur, Rules, 1978 by inserting Rule 6(B). Rule 6(B) which reads as follows: “ Rule 6(B) - Terminal Benefit shall also be admissible to the Work-charged Employees who retired prior to 18-9-78 are living on the date of issue of this order, from 18-9-78 and also family pension to the families of Work-charged employees who died prior to 21.06.1990 but are living on the date of issue of this order”. 4. From the bare perusal of Rule 6(B) of the Terminal Benefit, it is clear that family pension are entitled to the families of Work-charged employees who died prior to 21.6.1990 but whose family members are living on the date of issue of the order. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to get family pension under the said Terminal Benefit Rules because of the amended Rule 6(B). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is entitled to get family pension under the said Terminal Benefit Rules because of the amended Rule 6(B). In order to substantiate the case of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner referred earlier Judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 1.10.2001 passed in Writ Appeal No. 154 of 1990 and batch and also the earlier Judgment and order dated 01.03.2005 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1445 of 2003 and batch. 5. From perusal of the case of the petitioner in the present writ petition supported by affidavit and earlier Judgment and order of the Division Bench dated 01.10.2001 passed in Writ Appeal No.154 of 2001 and batch and the Judgment and order of this Court dated 01.03.2005 passed in W.P.(C) No. 1445 of 2003, this Court is of the considered view that the present writ petition is squarely covered by the said earlier Judgments and orders of this Court. In the result, the present writ petition is allowed and the respondents are to give family pension as per the Terminal Benefit for Work-charged staff of PWD/IFCD/PHED/MI/Electricity, Manipur Rules, 1978 by extending the benefits of the earlier Division Bench common Judgment and order dated 01.10.2001 to the present writ petition. The whole exercise shall be completed within a period of 6(six) months from the date of receipt of this Judgment and order. No order as to costs.