Order 1. Heard Mrs. Nisha Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. A.K. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 6. 2. Counter and rejoinder affidavit has been exchanged. The matter was listed today as a date fixed cases and since pleadings are complete and counsel are agreed, the writ petition is being decided finally. 3. The instant writ petition has been filed by the widow of late Kamala Kanta Choudhury, an Ex-Coal Board Employee, who worked since 1959 in the office of Coal Controller, Ministry of Coal till the merger in the year 1975 with a Public Sector Company and thus in these circumstances the petitioner has become an employee of Coal- Board from 1959 to 1975 i.e. 15 years 7 months 24 days, making him eligible for pension under Rule 49(1) of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972. 4. The petitioner's husband retired on 1st April, 1975 and after his retirement, Petitioner he was given pension bearing PPO No.147759901179 vide letter dated 2nd September, 1999 (Annexure-2), by virtue of fifteen years of continuous service in the organisation. The petitioner's husband died on 5th March, 2002. Thereafter documents were submitted for the family pension by means of letter dated 30th May, 2006 (Annexure-4). Almost four years have gone by but the petitioner has been made to run from pillar to post for family pension. 5. The specific assertion in paragraph 11 of the writ petition is that the petitioner's husband was entitled for family pension subsequent to his death i.e. 5th March, 2002. The Coal Mines Provident Fund Commissioner, Dhanbad (respondent no. 6) by means of letter dated 19th November, 2006 (Annexure-5), relating to admissibility of the family pension of the petitioner, was informed by the Regional Commissioner vide letter dated 16th January, 2008 (Annexure-6) to the office of the Coal Controller, Kolkata that CMPF Family Pension Scheme, 1971 is not applicable in the case of the petitioner, and it is stated that since the petitioner had opted for CMPF Family Pension Scheme, 1971 under Section 2(d) and, therefore, he is not entitled for pension. 6. 6. The assertion of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is that the Pension Scheme of .Coal India Limited was started only in the year 1997 whereas the petitioner's husband superannuated in the year 1985 and, therefore, there is no occasion for him to opt under Pension Scheme of Coal India Limited, 1997. In view of this assertion of the Regional Commissioner, on the face of it, it is absolutely without any substance, as the petitioner is an old widow and her claim cannot be denied. 7. The specific averments made in paragraph 11 of the writ- petition has not been replied specifically in the counter affidavit rather a sweeping reply has been made by the respondents and nothing has been specifically stated. 8. I have heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties at length and having gone through the record, I am not in agreement with the statements made by Mr. A.K. Trivedi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 on the grounds that (i) the Act is not applicable in the case of the petitioner because it is only applicable in such cases where the employee is already in service. The petitioner has superannuated much before the Act was enacted and, therefore, there was no occasion for him to give any option whatsoever; (ii) it is not disputed that the petitioner had worked for fifteen long years in the organisation and, thereafter for 17 years he was drawing pension, but subsequently the department took a complete somersault and started taking shelter behind the excuse that husband of petitioner exercised his option and that she is not entitled to family pension. There is nothing on record to substantiate that a lump sum amount was paid to the petitioner's husband at any point of time to substantiate the claim. Admittedly, the petitioner's husband superannuated much before and, therefore, the option, even if given, has no sanctity. No such documents was brought on the record in support of the contention that the petitioner's husband had given option, bald assertion is without any substance and, accordingly, I am not in agreement with the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. In view of the discussions made above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondent no. No such documents was brought on the record in support of the contention that the petitioner's husband had given option, bald assertion is without any substance and, accordingly, I am not in agreement with the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the respondents. 9. In view of the discussions made above, this writ petition is allowed. The respondent no. 3 is directed to ensure that family pension is released forth with, preferably within a period of one month from the date of production of certified copy of this order, the respondents shall also give arrears to the -petitioner with interest @ 6% per annum within a period of six months. 10. After the judgment was dictated, Mr. Ratnesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 6CMPF pointed out that since the matter relates to Central Government, the dispute should have been raised before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), but no objection was raised at the first instance when the writ petition was filed. Neither in the counter affidavit nor during course of argument. No doubt, it is an objection worth consideration but not at this stage and especially in these circumstances where the widow is absolutely on the verge of starvation, Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India give power to the High Court to decide the matter and assume jurisdiction and, therefore, I am not inclined to reject the writ petition on this ground at this stage. Article 226 of the Constitution is an equity jurisdiction. The balance of equity definitely tilts in favour of the petitioner. Therefore, any objection on the ground of jurisdiction is not worth consideration at such a belated stage.