JUDGMENT 1. - The widow of deceased employee has approached this Court with the grievance that despite there was an amendment made vide notification dated 18.07.1988 extending the provisions of New Family Pension Rules, 1964 contained in Chapter-XXIIIA to such widow of Government officials who are on pensionable establishment retired prior to 01.03.1964 and were in receipt of pension on the date of death or died while in service before 01.03.1964 or were in service from 01.03.1964, when pension under the New Family Pension scheme was not extended to her she earlier approached to the Service Appellate Tribunal by filing Appeal-2274/2001 which after keeping the appeal pending for almost five years disposed of with direction to the petitioner to make representation and at the same time the respondents were also called upon to decide the representation regarding her entitlement in terms of amendment notification dated 18.07.1988 in accordance with law vide judgment dated 04.07.2006. 2. Pursuant to directions of the learned Tribunal the petitioner submitted representation and the same was decided on 15.06.2007 (Annx.12) denying family pension to her, which she has assailed by filing instant petition. 3. It has been alleged by the petitioner that her husband initially joined service on 24.10.1952 on the post of Tracer and was promoted to Junior Draftsman on 05.06.1985 and while holding the promotional post died on 09.03.1959 but since he had not completed the minimum qualifying service of ten years, the petitioner never claimed for grant of family pension. However, an amendment notification dated 18.07.1988 in terms of Chapter XXIIIA extending provisions to New Family Pension Rules, 1964 to such of the widows of the Government employees who retired or died on 01.03.1964, makes the petitioner entitled for family pension which has been arbitrarily denied to her. 4. However, an amendment notification dated 18.07.1988 in terms of Chapter XXIIIA extending provisions to New Family Pension Rules, 1964 to such of the widows of the Government employees who retired or died on 01.03.1964, makes the petitioner entitled for family pension which has been arbitrarily denied to her. 4. When she approached to the Tribunal by filing appeal, it was expected to examine on merit and decide her claim regarding release of new family pension in terms of amendment notification dated 18.07.1988 but it was very unfortunate that the learned Tribunal after keeping the matter pending for almost five years directed the petitioner to submit representation, which she submitted to the State authorities and it was decided without the question being examined as to petitioner's claim for release of new family pension in terms of amendment notification dated 18.07.1988 on the premise that since documentary evidence has not been annexed with the representation and she filed claim after 46 years of death of her husband, she is not now entitled to seek the relief as prayed for. 5. In the reply filed by the respondents, their objection is of delay in approaching to the Tribunal and so also to the Court regarding release of her family pension and counsel for respondents further submits that her husband died in 1959 and service records of petitioner's husband is not available, in absence whereof, the respondents are not in a position to decide her claim regarding release of new family pension in terms of amendment notification (supra). 6. Counsel further submits that petitioner approached this Court after an inordinate delay which dis-entitles her in claiming relief under the new family pension scheme introduced by the State Government. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. 6. Counsel further submits that petitioner approached this Court after an inordinate delay which dis-entitles her in claiming relief under the new family pension scheme introduced by the State Government. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 8. From the perusal of the record, it is really very unfortunate on the part of the State to come forward who claims to be a model employer raising such frivolous objections regarding delay in seeking release of family pension and it being recurring cause of action and welfare legislation such rightful claim could not have been denied on account of delay in raising the grievance as alleged in terms of amendment notification (supra) which makes her entitled for new family pension scheme extending to the widows of Government employees who retired or died before 01.03.1964 vide notification dated 18.07.1988 and it was the first primary duty of the State Government to consider the cases of such employees who died before 01.03.1964 and to determine the family pension which the widows of deceased employee were entitled for in terms of amendment notification (supra) and if the state authorities has failed to discharge its legal obligation which was casted upon them pursuant to amendment notification at least it is not expected from the State authorities to raise such an objection that delay in filing application dis-entitles the widow from claiming family pension as prayed for. Apart from it, from the material on record it reveals that the petitioner approached the Tribunal way back in 2001 but it was very unfortunate that the Tribunal after keeping the appeal pending for almost five years disposed of with direction to the petitioner to submit representation and at the same time it was also expected from the State authorities to decide her claim of family pension which she was entitled for under the New Family Pension Scheme pursuant to amendment notification dated 18.07.1988 on merits but it also met with the same fate and the State authorities also rejected her representation on the premise that after 46 years of death of her husband she cannot claim family pension. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.K. Mastan Bee v. General Manager, South Central Railway and another, 2003(1) SCC 84 observed that delay/latches will not be considered to be fatal in case pertaining to livelihood of the incumbent and right of family pension being a legal right of the employee cannot be denied or non-suited on the ground of delay. 9. The Apex Court in S.K. Mastan Bee (supra) observed ad infra : "It is on record that the appellant is an illiterate who at the time of her husband's death did not know of her legal right to family pension and the remedy to enforce her such right. On the death of the husband of the appellant, it was obligatory for her husband's employer viz, the Railways, in the present case to compute the family pension payable to the appellant and offered the same to her without her having to make a claim or without driving her to a litigation. The very denial of her right to family pension amounted to violation of the guarantee assured to the appellant under Article 21. The factum of the appellant's lack of resources to approach the legal forum timely is not disputed by the Railways." "In view of said the obligation of the Railways and also in view of the fact that her husband was only a a Gangman in the Railways who might not have left behind sufficient resources for the appellant to agitate her rights and also in view of the fact that the appellant is an illiterate, the Single Judge was justified in granting the relief to the appellant from the date from which it became due to her, that is the date of the death of her husband. The Division Bench fell in error in restricting that period to a date subsequent to 1.4.1992." (Head-Note) The Division Bench of this Court as well in Din Mohmmed @ Deenia (Since Deceased) through Legal Representative; Shri Kayamuddin v. The Union of India & Others, 2002 WLC (Raj.) UC 103 observed as infra : 12. Payment of pension to one Lal Singh under exactly similar circumstances, as per directions of this Court has not been disputed. Payment of pension to one Lal Singh under exactly similar circumstances, as per directions of this Court has not been disputed. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Rukma (supra) has observed that the cause of action in the matter of pension is recurring and the petition could not be thrown only on the ground of delay and latches. Moreover, in the present case, there has been a regular correspondence amongst the authorities themselves in regard to the payment of pension and other retiral benefits to the applicant-petitioner. Having considered the entire facts and circumstances of the present case, in our opinion, the present appeal deserves to be allowed." 10. In the instant case there cannot be said to be an inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner in seeking relief as prayed for and so far the latches are concerned, the same cannot be attributed to her and it was on account of delay in the process of adjudication for which no-one can be held responsible. 11. In view of what has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and also the Division Bench of this Court the preliminary objection raised by the respondent regarding delay in approaching the Tribunal and so also to this Court deserves to be rejected and as regards merit of the matter, in view of amendment made vide notification dated 18.07.1988 extending provision of New Family Pension Rules,1964 to such of the widows of the Government employees who have retired or died before 01.03.1964 are entitled for family pension w.e.f.01.04.1988 and indisputably petitioner's husband also died before 01.03.1964 i.e. on 09.03.1959 by that time he rendered almost more than six years of service that certainly makes the petitioner who is widow of the deceased employee entitled for release of family pension under Chapter XXIIIA and the communication (Annx.12) made to the petitioner by the respondent deserves to be quashed set aside. 12. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. 12. Consequently, the writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. The communication rejecting claim of the petitioner regarding family pension dated 15.06.2007 (Annx.12) is quashed and set aside and it is held that petitioner is entitled for family pension under the New Family Pension Scheme Chapter XXIIIA in terms of amendment notification dated 18.07.1988 and the respondents are directed to computer her family pension to which she is entitled for under law in terms of the amendment notification (supra) and the arrear which is payable to her w.e.f.01.04.1988 shall be paid along with interest @ 9% per annum in terms of R.89 of the Rajasthan Pension Rules,1996. Compliance of the judgment be made within four months. No cost.Writ Petition Allowed. *******