JUDGMENT 1. This appeal has been preferred by State of Rajasthan and others against judgment dated 03.10.2006 of learned Single Judge by which writ petition filed by petitioner-respondent Anjuman Society Khandan-E-Amiriya Tonk, (for short, 'the respondent Society') was allowed and appellant State was directed to pay 'khandan' allowance to members of respondent society as per increased rates. 2. Shri Phool Singh Meena, Treasury Officer, representative of appellants State, appeared and made submissions on behalf of appellants. No one has appeared on behalf of respondent Society. The matter was nevertheless considered on merits. 3. Respondent Society claims itself to be a registered society consisting of members of Khandan of His-Highness Nawab-Amir-Ud-Daulah, erstwhile Ruler of the then State of Tonk. It was contended that members of respondent Society were receiving 'khandan' allowance under provisions of Tonk State Khandan Rules, 1944 (for short, 'the Rules of 1944'). The Rules of 1944 were published in State Gazette extraordinary on 25.05.1944 under command of the Nawab of erstwhile Tonk State by the Darbar Secretary Mirza Amir Ali Khan. The Rules of 1944 constituted 'Law' made by the sovereign authority and had statutory force. With aim and object to abolish the cash jagir etc. within territory of Rajasthan State, the Rajasthan Legislature published Rajasthan Cash Jagir Abolition Act, 1958 (for short, 'the Act of 1958') on 13.07.1958. The State Government issued an order on 13.12.1969, which was published in Rajasthan Gazette Part-I (Kha) dated 12.02.1970, whereby provisions of the Act of 1958 were exempted in respect of persons who were governed by the Act of 1944. 4. This Court in Anjuman Society Khandan-E-Amiriyas Tonk v. State of Rajasthan, 1994 (2) WLC (Raj.) 538 , while deciding Writ Petition No.3072/1990 vide judgment dated 28.07.1994, held that Rules of 1944 still hold the field as "law in force" and allowed writ petition quashing orders dated 26.07.1986 and 03.08.1987. By those two orders, the Government restricted payment of 'khandan' allowance only to those who are not in Government service or who are not having income of more than five hundred rupees or who are not getting old pension. By those two orders, the Government restricted payment of 'khandan' allowance only to those who are not in Government service or who are not having income of more than five hundred rupees or who are not getting old pension. As a result thereof, some of persons, who were otherwise getting pension, were denied benefit of pension and this court in Anjuman Society Khandan-E-Amiriyas Tonk's case (supra) held that aforesaid Government orders amounting to amendment in the Rules of 1944 were absolutely devoid of jurisdiction and that such amendment in the Rules by administrative instructions were not permissible. Government orders dated 26.07.1986 and 03.08.1987 were therefore quashed. This Court in aforesaid judgment relied on earlier judgment of this Court in Abdul Karim Khan v. State of Rajasthan, 1961 RLW 386 , wherein a Division Bench of this Court held that the Rules of 1944 were not mere administrative or executive instructions issued by the then Ruler. The Rules of 1944 constituted 'law', made by the sovereign authority and had statutory force. In fact judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Abdul Karim Khan's case (supra) was based on Supreme Court judgment in Ameer-un-Nissa Begum and Others v. Mahboob Begum and Others, AIR 1955 SC 352 . In that case question before Supreme Court was whether 'Furmaan' issued by the Nawab of Hyderabad was having force of law and it was held "prior to the integration of Hyderabad State with the Indian Union and coming into force of the Indian Constitution, the Nizam of Hyderabad enjoyed uncontrolled sovereign powers. He was the supreme legislature, the supreme judiciary and the supreme head of the executive, and there was no constitutional limitations upon his authority to act in any of these capacities. The 'Furmaans' were expressions of the sovereign, will of the Nizam and they were binding in the same way as any other law." The same view was reiterated in Director of Endowments v. Akram Ali & Others, AIR 1956 SC 60 and in Madhaorao v. State of Madhya Bharat, AIR 1961 SC 298 . 5. Occasion for petitioner-respondent to file present writ petition arose when appellants herein did not pay to its members 'khandan' allowance as per increased rates in terms of Government orders dated 14.11.1979 and 24.12.1992. 6. 5. Occasion for petitioner-respondent to file present writ petition arose when appellants herein did not pay to its members 'khandan' allowance as per increased rates in terms of Government orders dated 14.11.1979 and 24.12.1992. 6. Contention of respondent Society before learned Single Judge was that even if this Court, in its earlier judgment dated 28.07.1994 in Writ Petition No. 3072/1990 (supra) did not specifically advert to two orders dated 14.11.1979 and 24.12.1992, it does not affect the rights of members of respondent Society because the court categorically held that the Rules of 1944 had force of law and that members of respondent Society were entitled to get 'khandan' allowance as per the Rules. 7. Contention of appellants State before learned Single Judge and now again before us in Division Bench is that payment of 'khandan' allowance was being made to members of respondent Society as per provisions of the Rules of 1944 and judgment of this Court dated 28.07.1994 in Writ Petition No.3072/1990. Finance Department of Government of Rajasthan has issued necessary clarification thereabout in its order dated 16.09.1995 that since order of the Government dated 03.04.1979, which was applicable to members of respondent Society, is ab-initio withdrawn, the subsequent order dated 24.12.1992 increasing 'khandan' allowance, which was issued in continuation thereof, would not be applicable to them. The appellants herein therefore be directed to pay the 'khandan' allowance as per the increased rate. The clarification order dated 16.09.1995 issued by the Finance Department would not be applicable to them. 8. Learned Single Judge in impugned order held that the members of respondent Society would be entitled to get 'khandan' allowance at the rate of Rs. 40/- per month increased by order dated 14.11.1979, which was further increased to Rs. 100/- per month by order dated 24.12.1992. 9. On perusal of aforesaid two orders and considering earlier judgment of this court, we find that specific reference to 'khandan' allowance has been made in both the orders. There is no justification for the State Government to contend that said orders would not be applicable to the members of the respondent Society and entitlement of members of respondent Society would freeze at the stage whether members of respondent Society were receiving 'khandan' allowance when earlier judgment of this Court. We find no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge. 10. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.Appeal Dismissed. *******