Judgment :- M. Chockalingam, J. This contempt petition is brought forth by the petitioner, seeking to take action against the respondents for the alleged violation of the order of this Court made in W.P.No.22271 of 2007, dated 05.07.2007. 2. The affidavit filed in support of the petition is perused. The Court heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and also for the respondents. 3. The only grievance ventilated by the petitioner is that the family pension when it was disbursed by the respondent State, it was only from the year 1977, while as per the order of this court, it should have been done from the date of death of the husband of the petitioner, i.e. from 11. 1963 onwards and thus, there was disobedience and under these circumstances, the respondents have got to be proceeded with. 4. In answer to the above, the learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the pension Rule 54 is strictly applicable to the persons, who are in service on or after 1. 1964 and if any person, who was in service, died prior to the said date, the family pensionary benefits even as per the Rule could be given only from 22.09.1977, which is made clear in the Rule and hence the calculations for pensionary benefits from 1977 onwards is perfectly correct and is in obedience of the order and therefore, the contempt petition has got to be dismissed. 5. The Court has paid its anxious consideration on the submissions made and looked into the materials available. It is not in controversy that the husband of the petitioner, while was in service, died on 11. 1963. Pursuant to the order of this court, now the family pensionary benefits have been actually given to the petitioner, the wife of the deceased employee, from 1977 and not from the date 11. 1963. It would be more apt and appropriate to reproduce Rule 54: "54. 1963. Pursuant to the order of this court, now the family pensionary benefits have been actually given to the petitioner, the wife of the deceased employee, from 1977 and not from the date 11. 1963. It would be more apt and appropriate to reproduce Rule 54: "54. Family Pension, 1964 (1) The provisions of this rule shall apply- (a) To a Government servant entering service in a pensionable establishment on or after the 1st January, 1964; and (b) To a Government servant who was in service on the 31st December, 1963 and came to be governed by the provisions of the Family Pension Scheme for Central Government Employees, 1964, contained in the Ministry of Finance, Office Memorandum No.9(16)-E, V(A)/63, dated the 31st December, 1963, as in force immediately before the commencement of these rules. [NOTE:- The provisions of this rule will also extend, from 22nd September, 1977, to Government servants on pensionable establishments who retire/died before 31/12/1963, as also to those who were alive on 312. 1963, but had opted out of 1964 Scheme]." From a reading of the Rule, it would be quite clear that the provisions of the Rule was to be extended from 22nd September, 1977 to the Government servants on pensionable establishments who retire or died before 312. 1963 as also to those who were alive on 312. 1963. Thus, it would be quite clear that it could be extended only from 22nd September, 1977. The petitioners husband died on 11. 1963. A reading of the Rule would clearly reveal that the pensionary benefits to the persons, who died prior to 312. 1963, could be given only from 22nd September, 1977. The Rule has also been incorporated in the order in question. Under these circumstances, the calculations of pensionary benefits from 22nd September, 1977 is in order. This Court is unable to notice any disobedience in the order of this court. Under these circumstances, this contempt petition is dismissed.