JUDGMENT A. K. Shrivastava, J. -- 1. This appeal has been filed under section 2 (1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 against the order dated 4.10.2007 passed by learned Writ Court in W.P. (S) No. 1290/04 dismissing the petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 2. The writ petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the learned Writ Court seeking following reliefs which read thus: "(a) That, order dated 6.8.2003 Annex. P/1 may kindly be declared illegal and respondents may kindly be directed to grant family pension to the petitioner by counting the part of service which petitioner's husband rendered as daily wager in employment. (b) That, any other relief which this Hon'ble High Court may deem fit with cost of petition." 3. As per the case of writ petitioner/appellant, the petitioner is the wife of Late Ashraf Khan, who was serving on the post of Driver in the office of the respondents and had died on 5.3.2002 and after the death of her husband, the petitioner submitted an application for seeking the benefit of family pension and other service benefits. However, the respondents vide letter dated 6.8.2003 informed the reasons and denied the benefit of pension and other service benefits to her on the ground that the deceased employee did not complete the requisite period of qualifying service for allowing the family pensionary benefits to the writ petitioner. A copy of the order of the Executive Engineer in that regard dated 6.8.2003 had been placed an annexure P/1 before the learned Writ Court. 4. The respondents filed their return and took a stand that because the husband of the writ petitioner did not qualify the requisite service for obtaining the pension, therefore, she is not entitled for any family pension or other service benefits. 5. 4. The respondents filed their return and took a stand that because the husband of the writ petitioner did not qualify the requisite service for obtaining the pension, therefore, she is not entitled for any family pension or other service benefits. 5. The learned Writ Court by the impugned order dated 4.10.2007 has dismissed the Writ petition holding that in the light of the decision of the Division Bench Shrikrishna Shrivastava v. State of M.P. and others, 2004 (1) MPWN 115 = 2003 (4) MPLJ 376 and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court State of Rajasthan v. Kunji Raman, AIR 1997 SC 693 and as per the provisions of M.P. Irrigation Department Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees Recruitment and Conditions Service Rules, 1977 as well as M.P. Civil Services (pension) Rules, 1976 (in short "the Pension Rules of 1976") since the husband of the writ petitioner was engaged as daily wager was not entitled to count his services prior to regularization order viz. 31.12.1998 for the purpose of pension and gratuity and further held that the husband of the petitioner since did not complete five years and ten years of qualifying service as per Rule 43 of the Pension Rules of 1976, hence, the writ petitioner is not entitled for the family pension and gratuity after the death of her husband. 6. We have heard Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for appellant and Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi learned Additional Advocate General for respondents/State. 7. Shri S.K. Sharma, learned counsel for appellant by inviting our attention to para 5 (4) of the writ petition has contended that the husband of the petitioner died on 5.3.2002 and further it has been contended by him that the service of the husband of the petitioner were regularized on 31.12.1998 and in this regard he has invited our attention to Annexure P/2. In para 5 (4) of the writ petition it is pleaded that the husband of the petitioner Ashraf Khan was an employee in the respondent-department nom May, 1980 as a driver for full time in the office as daily wager and has been paid monthly amount in lieu of salary from the contingency fund and his services were regularized vide order dated 31.12.1998. Hence, the appellant/writ petitioner is entitled for family pension. Hence, the appellant/writ petitioner is entitled for family pension. The husband of the appellant/writ petitioner would be deemed to be a 'permanent employee' as envisaged under Rule 2 (c) of Madhya Pradesh (Work Charged and Contingency Paid Employees) Pension Rules, 1979 (for brevity ''the Pension Rules of 1979") and if that would be the position since appellant's husband was appointed in May, 1980 as a driver for full time in the office as daily wager and was paid monthly amount in lieu of the salary from contingency fund, therefore, the qualifying services would be computed from the date of his initial appointment viz. May, 1980 vis-a-vis to Rule 2 (c) and Rule 6 of the Pension Rules of 1979. In support of his contention learned counsel has put emphasis on the decision of the Supreme, Court Ram Kumar Agrawal v. State of M.P and others, 1995 Supp. (3) SCC 67. Learned counsel has also placed heavy reliance on the Single Bench decision of this Court Surendra Kumar Chaturvedi v. State of M.P and others, 2005 (3) MPLJ 385 . 8. On the other hand Shri M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, learned Additional Advocate General argued in support of the impugned order and submitted that since the husband of the writ petitioner did not qualify the qualifying service after his regularisation from 31.12.1998 and he breathed his last on 5.3.2002, therefore, the petitioner who is wife of the deceased employee is not entitled for family pension. Learned Additional Advocate General further submitted that Rule 12 of the Pension Rules of 1976 pertains to qualifying service and the same is applicable on the petitioner and if the case of writ petitioner is judged from any angle, since the husband of the writ petitioner did not qualify the qualifying service, she is not entitled for family pension and other pensionary benefits, and therefore, rightly the writ petition has been dismissed. 9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the Pension Rules of 1976 are app1icable in the case of the employees whose services are governed by the Pension Rules of 1979. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 10. We do not find any merit in the contention of the learned Additional Advocate General that the Pension Rules of 1976 are app1icable in the case of the employees whose services are governed by the Pension Rules of 1979. On bare perusal of Rule 2 of the Pension Rules 1976 which speaks about the application of the said Rules and particularly Rule 2 (ii) (a) we find that the Pension Rules of 1976 are not applicable to a person employed in a work charged establishment. Looking to the definition clause of the Pension Rules of 1979 we find that what is the meaning of "Contingency paid employee", "Work-charged employee" and "Permanent employee" has been defined in Rule 2 of the Pension Rules of 1979 and we would like to apt to quote the same, which reads thus :- "(a) "Contingency paid employee" means a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to office contingencies excluding the employees who are employed for certain period only in a year. (b) "Work-charged employee" means a person employed upon the actual execution, as distinct from general supervision of a specified work or upon subordinate supervision of the departmental labour, store, running and repairs of electrical equipment and machinery in connection with such work, excluding the daily paid labour and muster-roll employee employed on the work. (c) "Permanent employee" means a contingency paid employee or a work-charged employee who has completed fifteen years of service or more on or after the 1st January, 1974; Provided that in respect of a contingency paid employee or a work charged employee who has attained the age of superannuation on or after the First April 1981, permanent employee means an employee who has completed 10 years of service on or after the 1st January, 1974." If we analyze the definition of "Contingency paid employee" in a broader spectrum, according to us, it will include a person employed for full time in an office or establishment and who is paid on monthly basis and whose pay is charged to office contingencies excluding the employees who are employed for certain period only in a year. 11. 11. At this juncture, we would like to go through the pleading of the writ petitioner as envisaged in para 5 (4) of the writ petitioner which reads thus: "5 (4) That, it is true that husband of the petitioner late Shri Ashraf Khan on account of the need of Driver in the office of respondents has been as daily wagers and has been paid monthly amount in lieu of salary from the contingent fund and late Shri Ashraf Khan continue worked in the office of respondents and lastly respondents constituted a department committee and regularised the services of petitioner's husband vide order dated 31.12.98. A copy of order dated 31.12.98 is enclosed Annex. P/2 in this order petitioner's husband name is find place at Sr. No. 021." In very specific term the pleading of the writ petitioner is that her husband Late Ashraf Khan on account of the need of the driver in the office of the respondents, was employed in May, 1980 for full time in the office as daily wager and was paid monthly amount in lieu of salary from the contingency fund and his services were regularised on 31.12.1998. All the facts, pleaded in para 5 (4) of the writ petition have been admitted by the respondents in the return filed by them. Hence it is no more in dispute, rather it is an admitted position, that the husband of the writ petitioner namely Ashraf Khan was a driver in the office of respondents and was employed in May, 1980 as daily rated employee for full time in the office and was paid monthly amount, in lieu of the salary from the contingency fund and if that would be the position, according to us, since the petitioner's husband qualified the qualifying service as "permanent employee" as per the definition clause 2 (c) of the Pension Rules of 1979 before he died on 5.3.2002, hence, the writ petitioner is entitled for the family pension and gratuity. 12. 12. The Supreme Court in Ram Kumar Agrawal (supra), though it was a case of voluntary retirement, wherein the pension was sought, by considering the definition of "perm anent employee" of the Pension Rules of 1979 in para 2 has held that the employee Ram Kumar Agarwal is entitled for pension since he qualified the qualifying services of 20 years as he served out for 21 years at the time when he was voluntarily retired. Adopting the analogy of the Supreme Court since the qualifying services which was 10 years earlier, but which has been reduced to six years by the circular of the Government, according to us, the husband of the writ petitioner qualified the qualifying services for obtaining the pension before his death, and hence, the writ petitioner being his wife is entitled for the family pension. At this juncture we would like to quote the circular of the Government by which the qualifying services has been reduced from ten years to six years which reads thus: ^^e/;izns'k ‘kklu foRr foHkkx ea=ky; vf/klwpuk Hkksiky] fnukad …Œ tuojh] Šˆ Øekad ch „‡-ƒ‰-Š‡ ihMCywlh Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn ds ijarqd }kjk iznÙk ‘kfDr;ksa dks iz;ksx esa ykrs gq, e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ,rn }kjk] e/;izns'k dk;ZHkkfjr rFkk vkdfLedrk ls osru ikus okys deZpkjh isa'ku fu;e] ƒŠ‰Š esa fuEufyf[kr vkSj la'kks/ku djrs gSa vFkkZr~ %& mDr fu;eksa esa & fu;e & ˆ ds mi fu;e „ ds i'pkr~ fuEufyf[kr mi fu;e tksM+k tk, vFkkZr%& … fdlh vLFkkà deZpkjh ds fcuk fdlh O;o/kku ds] fdlh Hkh fu;fer isa'ku ;ksX; in ij lafofy;u fd;s tkus ij ƒ tuojh] ƒŠ‰† ls vkxs dh xà lsok] c'krsZ fd ,slh lsok Ng o"kZ ls de dh u gks] isa'ku ds fy, fxuh tk,xh] ekuk fd ,slh lsok fdlh fu;fer in ij dh xà gksA e/;izns'k ds jkT;iky ds uke ls rFkk vkns'kkuqlkj mi lfpo e/;izns'k ‘kklu foRr foHkkx** 13. In this view of the matter, according to us, the writ petitioner is entitled for the relief of family pension as well as gratuity as prayed by her in the writ petition. Hence, by setting aside the impugned order 4.10.2007 passed by the learned Writ Court, we hereby allow the appeal of the appellant/writ petitioner and direct the respondent to pay her family pension as well as the gratuity of her husband Late Shri Ashraf Khan. 14. Hence, by setting aside the impugned order 4.10.2007 passed by the learned Writ Court, we hereby allow the appeal of the appellant/writ petitioner and direct the respondent to pay her family pension as well as the gratuity of her husband Late Shri Ashraf Khan. 14. Since the husband of the appellant/writ petitioner was a low paid employee and on account of windfall on the head of the writ petitioner she became widow on account of death of her husband and a widow of a very low paid employee has been denied by the reliefs, which she is otherwise entitled for, therefore, we are of the view that she is entitled for exemplary costs which was quantify Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand). This appeal is accordingly allowed with costs. Counsel fee Rs. 2,000/- (Rupees Two Thousand). Let the exemplary cost of Rs. 10,000/- and costs of writ petition as well as this appeal shall be paid to the writ petitioner along with the payment of family pension and gratuity within two months.