ORDER Anand Byrareddy, J. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner. 2. The respondents have not chosen to file any statement of objections. 3. It is the petitioner's case that she is the widow of one Shri S. Gopala Rao, who was working as a permanent employee with the third respondent Municipality. It is claimed that he joined the services of respondent in June, 1959 and he was granted annual increments and other allowances from time to time. He had put in service from 1959 to 1967 and died on 202-1967. It is therefore the claim of the petitioners that as per the Mysore Civil Services Rules, the late husband of the petitioner had opted for family pension as on 30-11-1965 and therefore, she was entitled for want of Family pension as the petitioner was the dependant on the deceased Gopala Rao. The petitioner has produced the death certificate of her husband and claims that she had filed eighteen documents along with a letter seeking grant of family pension and other benefits. Even though on the basis of her representations the first respondent had issued a direction to the third respondent to build up the records if no such records were available insofar as the petitioner's husband was concerned and grant family pension, no such benefit was granted and it is in this background the petitioner is before this Court. 4. The learned Government pleader contended that the Karnataka Government Servants (Family Pension) Rules, 1964, which were in vogue when the petitioner's husband had died would indicate that it would not apply to Government servants appointed regularly to the pensionable posts and that the Rules shall he applicable to Government servants appointed on or after 1st December, 1964 and since it was claimed that the petitioners husband was appointed well before 1964 there could be any such claim under the Rules. 5. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner would seek to place reliance on Rule 5(1) which indicates that Government servants having put in a continuous service for a period of one year dies while in service or after retirement on or after 1964, family pension shall be granted to him according to the clauses specified therein and hence, would submit that there can be no denial of the petitioner's entitlement. 6. 6. While the learned Government Pleader would on instructions submit that there is a Government Order dated 15.3.1993 which may be of some solace to the petitioner whereby the Government had proceeded to sanction family pension benefits to the families of several categories of municipal employees who had retired prior to 22-5-1972 and died subsequently and died while in service Prior to 22-5-1972 at the rate of Rs.390/- (minimum family pension) with dearness allowance with effect from the date of issuance of the order and would submit that an order may be passed in favour of the petitioner in terms of the said Government Order. 7. Therefore without entering into the further controversy as to whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the benefit from the date of death of her husband, since the Government Order indicates that the Government had sanctioned family pension to the employees who had retired prior to 1972 at the rate of Rs.390/- which is the minimum family pension along with dearness allowance with effect from 15-3-1993, the same shall accordingly be conferred on the petitioner. 8. Therefore the petition is allowed. The respondent shall pay pension at the aforesaid rate with effect from 15.3.1993 to the petitioner and continue to pay the same during her lifetime. 9. The learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance within three weeks.