JUDGMENT 1. - The Court has to open its eyes while granting relief to the family of the petitioner who is the wife of 100% blind employee and died on 28-9-94 and left his family in distress position. The question in the present writ petition is whether a person who has suffered from 100% disability is entitled to get what relief ? The petitioner's husband Sh. Ranjeet Singh was employed on the post of Constable, under the respondent- department and while he was posted at Agartala (Tripura), he suffered eye infection during the course of performance of his duties due to polluted and infected environment. Thus he suffered eye disease during the course of performance of duties and this disease was aggravated due to the fact that more duty was taken from him at the above place. The husband of the petitioner remained under treatment and consequently the Medical Board was conducted, and upon the recommendation of the Medical Board, the petitioner's husband was prematurely retired from service on 6-3-1992 w.e.f. 28-2-1992. After his pre- mature retirement from service on medical ground, the petitioner submitted an application for giving appointment on cam passionate ground. The petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected. 2. By this writ petition, petitioner has prayed for making fixation of family pension from 28-9-94 along with arrears and interest @ 18% per annum. The petitioner has also prayed for making payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Welfare Fund and also prayed for appointment on the post of Class IV employee on compassionate ground. 3. Since the petitioner has moved an application for grant of family pension, her case was forwarded to the Pension Department. The Pension Department vide order dated 22-2-97 informed the petitioner that since the husband of the petitioner has completed only 2 years and 10 months service which is not sufficient for the purpose of pension, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for family pension. The Pension Department also communicated that since Sh. Ranjeet Singh was not allowed any pension, therefore, her widow after the death of Ranjeet Singh is not entitled to any Family Pension as per the provisions given under Rule 268(B) of R.S.R. Regarding the compassionate appointment, the Pension Department observed that Sh. Ranjeet Singh died on 28-9-94 after his premature retirement on 20-2-1992, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any appointment on compassionate ground. Ranjeet Singh died on 28-9-94 after his premature retirement on 20-2-1992, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to any appointment on compassionate ground. Against the said order dated 22-2-97, the petitioner has filed this writ petition for grant of family pension and appointment on compassionate ground. 4. Reply to the writ petition was filed in which it has been stated that the husband of petitioner late Ranjeet Singh was retired on medical ground in view of the provisions as contained in Rule 228 of R.S.R., 1951 vide order dated 6-3-1992. It was also stated that late Ranjeet Singh was retired premature on medical ground and on the date of retirement, he completed only the services of 2 years 10 months and 11 days, therefore, he was not entitled to any pension. As per the provisions of Rule 268(B) of the R.S.R., 1951, no family pension is admissible to the widow of the deceased who was retired premature on medical ground. It was also stated that late Ranjeet Singh who died on 28-9-94 after his premature retirement was not in the service on the date of death, therefore, the widow of late Ranjeet Singh is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the provisions as contained in Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependant's of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 (for short as "Rules of 1996"). Thus the petitioner has no case. 5. A rejoinder has been filed by the petitioner controverting the contentions of the respondents as given in the reply. It is stated by way of this rejoinder that consolidated instructions of the Government of India makes it very clear that benefit of compassionate appointment can be extended to a son/daughter/near relative of Government servant retired on medical ground under Rule 38 of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972. It is also stated that Rule 268 of R.S.R. also does not prohibit respondents to provide the appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground in case of the family of the employee retired on medical ground is in distress. It is also stated that husband of the petitioner Sh. Ranjeet Singh was retired premature on medical ground because of 100% blindness developed during tenure of his service. It is also stated that husband of the petitioner Sh. Ranjeet Singh was retired premature on medical ground because of 100% blindness developed during tenure of his service. Had the respondents dealt with the matter of the provisions under the provisions of Rules 228 to 236 Section (iii) of Chapter XX of RSR, 1951, the petitioner could have been granted invalid pension and after his death on 28-9-94 his widow would have been receiving family pension as per Rules 228 to 236 of RSR, 1951. In the rejoinder, more emphasis was given that late Ranjeet Singh was retired premature on medical ground during his service tenure while performing his duties, therefore, he was entitled to invalid pension and in these circumstances, after his death his widow was entitled to family pension. Likewise the petitioner was entitled to appointment on compassionate ground as her husband was retired premature on medical ground due to 100% blindness and the provisions of Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependent of Deceased Government Servant (Dying While in Service) Rules, 1996 are not attracted in the instant case.6-7. I have gone through the record of the case and also considered the rival submissions made at the bar. 8. As regards, family pension, it is undisputed that the husband of the petitioner was retired premature on medical ground because of 100% blindness making him permanently incapacitated from public service. Late Ranjeet Singh, husband of the petitioner was employed as Constable on 1-3-89 after declaring him medically fit by the competent Medical Officer. Thus, it can be very well said that 100% blindness was developed to late Ranjeet Singh during the course of his service and on account of this 100% blindness competent Medical Board recommended him to invalidate from public service as he became permanently incapacitated for public service and on the recommendation of the Medical Board, late Ranjeet Singh was retired premature w.e.f. 20-2-1992 vide order dated 6-3-1992. 9. Chapter XX of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 states about conditions of grant of pension. Section-I of this Chapter prescribes classification of pensions. Rule 214 of Section-I of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 divides pension into four classes i.e. (a) Compensation pension, (b) Invalid pension, (c) Superannuation Pension, and (d) Retiring Pension. Section-III, which contains Rule 228 to 238, prescribes about invalid pension. Section-I of this Chapter prescribes classification of pensions. Rule 214 of Section-I of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 divides pension into four classes i.e. (a) Compensation pension, (b) Invalid pension, (c) Superannuation Pension, and (d) Retiring Pension. Section-III, which contains Rule 228 to 238, prescribes about invalid pension. As per rule 228 an invalid pension is awarded on his retirement from the public service to a Government servant who by bodily or mental infirmity is permanently incapacitated for the public service or for the particular branch of it to which he belongs. Since the petitioner's husband was retired on account of blindness, hence, he was entitled to get invalid pension, but unfortunately the same was not given. Had it was given to the petitioner's husband he would have become member of pensionable establishment. On the other hand, according to Respondents neither he nor his family was entitled to get any pension in view of rule 268D of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951. It says that family pension shall be granted to the family of an officer who dies after retirement from and was in receipt of retiring or superannuation pension. But as per rule 268B(a) family pension can also be given to the family of an officer who dies while on service after completion of not less than one year's service. 10. Before considering facts about entitlement of pension benefits, it will be important to consider the circumstances on that basis petitioner's husband was retired from service. The Government framed the Rajasthan Employment of the Physically Handicapped Rules, 1976 (for short "the Rules of 1976") regulating recruitment and conditions of service of handicapped persons appointed to services and posts in connection with affairs of the State of Rajasthan. Rule 2(v) of the Rules, 1976 defines the words "physically handicapped" and as per the same, physically handicapped means and includes the following categories of physically handicapped persons : (A) Blind - The blinds are those who are suffering from either of the following conditions : (i) total absence of sight; and (ii) visual acuity not exceeding 6/60 or 20/20 (snellan) in the beeter eye with correcting lenses. (B) Deaf and/or Mute:- (i) The deaf are those in whom the sense of hearing is non-functional for ordinary purpose of life. (ii) The mute are those who cannot speak. (B) Deaf and/or Mute:- (i) The deaf are those in whom the sense of hearing is non-functional for ordinary purpose of life. (ii) The mute are those who cannot speak. (C) Orthopaedically handicapped:- The orthopaedically handicapped are those who have a major physical defect or deformity which causes an interference with normal functions of bones, muscles and joints. 11. Rule 14 of the Rules, 1976 is also relevant for the present controversy. The same is, therefore, reproduced as under : "14. Persons employed if physically handicapped later - Persons already in employment of the Government who may suffer from physical handicapped as defined in these rules shall also be entitled to relaxation of physical and medical examination provided in Rule 4 of these rules for reservation and shall also be entitled to be absorbed or adjusted on any other alternative post to which a physically handicapped persons may be entitled to under these rules, with the approval of Government." 12. The words "shall also be entitled to be absorbed or adjusted on any other alternative post" direct the Government to take exercise before retiring such persons from service. However, the Government before retiring the petitioner's husband no such exercise was undertaken. The petitioner submitted that had such exercise were taken her husband would have been absorbed definitely on any other suitable post but instead of absorbing him on any suitable post the Department took the last resort and retired him. There are numbers of posts on which blind persons, like the petitioner, can be adjusted, but such steps were not taken, resultantly, leaving his family in lurch. After retirement the petitioner's husband was not having any livelihood and because of famishing condition he died. Had the petitioner's husband been adjusted on any other suitable post while exercising the mandatory provisions of Rule 14 of the Rules, 1976 and thereafter he died, the petitioner would have been eligible to get family pension, but because of omission on the part of Government, she is not getting family pension. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in Anand Behari v. Rajasthan Road Transport Corporation, 1991(2) SCT 44 : (1991)1 SCC 731 case that instead of retiring persons on medical unfitness exercise of rehabilitation should be taken first. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has impressed on the corporation to further provide for alternative jobs to the persons who have become medically unfit for discharging duties. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has impressed on the corporation to further provide for alternative jobs to the persons who have become medically unfit for discharging duties. A direction for additional compensation was given only when it is not possible at all in the existing circumstances to provide alternative jobs. It has also been held that authorities should not take recourse only to the payment of additional compensation without first examining whether such employees could be put on alternative jobs. Similar view has also been taken by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rameshwar Dass v. State of Haryana, 1996(4) SCT 575 : (1995)3 SCC 285 . 14. Thus in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court read with Rule 14 of the Rules of 1976, it was the duty of the respondents to adjust the petitioner's husband on any suitable alternative job but not taking such exercise cannot give liberty to the respondents to deprive the petitioner even from family pension. Consequence of not taking such exercise is amounted to retiring the petitioner's husband from service was bad in law. It is settled law that if retirement or termination from service is bad in law then its consequence is to consider the employee in service and further to give him all benefits as if his services were never terminated. In the present matter, if this principle is applied, it is abundantly clear that the petitioner's husband should have been treated in service, and, therefore, it can safely be said that he died while in service. 15. I, therefore, allow the writ petition holding that the petitioner is entitled to get family pension. I direct the respondents to grant the benefits of family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. date when her husband died treating him on service. Arrears be paid to the petitioner within a period of three months from today. As regards the appointment on compassionate ground is concerned, the petitioner is at liberty to submit an application to the respondents in the light of the aforesaid observations. If such application is submitted by the petitioner, the respondents are directed to decide the same with speaking order within one month. 16. No order as to costs. Petition allowed. *******