JUDGMENT 1. 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant-State of Rajasthan against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20.5.2004 passed in SBCWP No. 4236/2002 by which the learned Single Judge has been pleased to allow the writ petition directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner/respondent herein under Sub Rule 6 of Rule 22 of the Work Charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 and the notification dated 11.12.1989 for grant of family pension. 2. It appears that the husband of the respondent Smt. Kiran Devi was working as a Beldar for 13 years between the period of 23.12.1978 to 18.5.1991 but was not declared permanent under the Work Charged Service Rules. Finally he died and his amount contributed towards G.P.F. amounting to Rs. 3536/- was paid to the respondent-wife vide letter dated 25.3.2003. The wife of the deceased Beldar thereafter filed a writ petition claiming family pension as it was submitted) that even the employees who had died were eligible for family pension to the dependent-wife as this option was given to the employees who were alive. The appellant-State had rejected this plea of the respondent-wife due to which she had to file the writ petition. The learned Single Judge while considering the case of the respondent-wife noted that as per Sub-rule 6 of Rule 22 of the Work Charged Rules read with the notification of the appellant-State dated 11.12.1989, any employee who died while in service and was not able to exercise option for pension, their dependents were held eligible to claim family pension. It is in view of this Rule that the learned Single Judge was pleased to allow the writ petition directing the respondent/appellant herein State of Rajasthan to consider the case of the respondent and if found entitled for family pension, she was ordered to be granted the same. 3. The appellant-State of Raj. instead of considering the claim of family pension of the respondent-wife, has filed this appeal. But having perused the order of the learned Single Judge, we do find any substance in this appeal for the reason that the learned Single Judge has merely directed the respondent State to consider the case of the respondent as per the provisions of Sub-rule 6 of Rule 22 of the Work Charged Rules, 1964. But having perused the order of the learned Single Judge, we do find any substance in this appeal for the reason that the learned Single Judge has merely directed the respondent State to consider the case of the respondent as per the provisions of Sub-rule 6 of Rule 22 of the Work Charged Rules, 1964. If the Rule holds her entitled to the family pension, we see no justification why the appellant-State should file an appeal for the impediment that the deceased had not exercised option of pension during his life time. If under Sub Rule 6 of Rule 22, the dependent, of the employees who had died while in service were also entitled to exercise option for grant of family pension we fail to understand why this benefit should be snatched away from the respondent-wife. Besides this, the appellant-State had been directed by the learned Single Judge to grant family pension to the respondent only in view of the Rule and if the Rule supports the case of the respondent, we cannot appreciate the denial of family pension to the respondent-wife specially when the deceased employee had discharged duties as Beldar continuously for a period of 13 years. If the dependent of the deceased employees are eligible for family pension who died during his service, obviously the same treatment will have to be meted out to the respondent-wife who is similarly situated as her husband died in service after 13 years of his job.The-appeal thus has no substance and hence it is dismissed.State Appeal Dismissed. *******