JUDGMENT By Court - The petitioner has approached this Court with the following prayers: (i) “For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction or writ in nature of certiorari for quashing the letter no. AP/Miscl/369 dated 14.7.2008 whereby and whereunder the appeal for sanction of family pension was rejected. AND (ii) For further issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction or writ in nature of certiorari for quashing of letter no. PLPP/Mailee Devi-8237 dated 8.5.2009 whereby and whereunder the decision conveyed vide letter dated 14.7.2008 was made absolute/affirm. AND (iii) For issuance of appropriate writ/order/direction or writ for direction upon the respondents to release the arrear of family pension along with statutory interest to the petitioner from the date of entitlements. AND/OR (iv) Any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as may be deemed fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the husband of the petitioner died in harness on 18.02.1987 and thereafter, the petitioner vide letter dated 05.05.1999 requested the Senior Personal Manager, Bokaro Thermal Power Station, DVC to pay the retiral dues of her husband. The petitioner again submitted letter dated 08.06.2000 requesting the Assistant Accounts Officer (PR) to settle the outstanding dues of her husband. By letter dated 14.07.2008, the petitioner was intimated that in the absence of option which an employee was required to exercise, the claim of the petitioner cannot be granted. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed reiterating the Office Memorandum dated 27.03.1989 justifying the impugned order. 4. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that since the husband of the petitioner died in the year, 1987 itself he had no occasion to exercise the option as provided under the Office Memo dated 27.03.1989. She has further submitted that in terms of clause 1 of the said memo, even if the option was not exercised, the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of DVC Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme, which cannot justifiably be denied to the petitioner. 6. As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and she has not disclosed in the writ petition that she did not vacate the official accommodation. She further submits that since option was not exercised, the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected. 7. 6. As against the above, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that the petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hands and she has not disclosed in the writ petition that she did not vacate the official accommodation. She further submits that since option was not exercised, the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected. 7. The Office Memo dated 27.03.1989 it extracted below: “Following the Government of India's Orders on the subject, the Corporation is pleased to decide as under: 1. All members of DVC CPF who were in service on 1.1.86 or who are still in service on the date of issue of this notification, shall be deemed to have come over to the DVC Pension-Cum-Gratuity Scheme subject to their not specifically exercising option for DVC CPF Scheme. The option will have to be exercised and conveyed to the Accounts Officer (Fund), Central accounts Office, DVC within 31st August, 1989 in the form annexed herewith. All members of DVC CPF, from whom such option will have not been received within that date, will be deemed to have come over to the Pension Scheme. 2. The members of the DVC CPF, who were in service on 1.1.86: (a) But have since retired before the issue of this Notification and in whose case final settlement of their CPF Accounts have been made, shall also have an option to come over to the Pension Scheme provided they surrender the amount of the corporation's contribution paid in settlement of their CPF Accounts together with interest thereon for the period between their getting the amount of the contribution from the corporation and their refunding the same for the purpose of availing Pension-cum-gratuity Scheme. (b) But have since retired and in whose case no payment of the Corporation's contribution or any part thereof has been made, will be allowed Retirement benefits as if they were covered by DVC Pension-cum-gratuity Scheme unless they specifically opt to retain their CPF. (c) But have since died either before or after their retirement, their cases shall be settled in accordance with Para (1) or 2(a) above as the case may be. Option in such cases shall be exercised by the widow/ widower/nominee/nominees/legal survivor within 31.8.1989 to become eligible for the benefit under the DVC Pension Scheme. 3. The option once exercised for the above Scheme shall be final. Option in such cases shall be exercised by the widow/ widower/nominee/nominees/legal survivor within 31.8.1989 to become eligible for the benefit under the DVC Pension Scheme. 3. The option once exercised for the above Scheme shall be final. In the type of cases covered by para 2(a) & (c) above members of CPF electing for pension as per above Scheme shall be liable to refund corporation's contribution with interest thereon drawn at the time of retirement within 31st August, 1989. Simple interest on the amount for refund will be payable at the rate of 10% per annum for the period of delay beyond 3 months before acceptance of their option. 4. Action to discontinue the subscription/contribution to CPF A/c. may be taken only after the last date specified for exercising option is over. 5. This O.M. will not apply to employees who on reemployment are allowed to subscribe to DVC C.P. Fund. This will also not apply to employees borne on workcharged establishments till they are brought under Regular cadre/Establishment and employees who are governed by the Coal Mines Provident Fund. 6. All new entrants recruited after issuance of this O.M. may be allowed, however, to opt either for CPF or for GPF as they may choose.” 8. I find that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on an erroneous interpretation of the Office Memorandum dated 27.03.1989. In para 1 of the Memorandum dated 27.03.1989 it has specifically been made clear that all the employees who were in service as on 01.01.1986, were deemed to have come over to the Pension and Gratuity Scheme. The option was to be exercised for remaining in the DVC CPF Scheme and not for opting the Pension and Gratuity Scheme. The husband of the petitioner was in service as on 01.01.1986 and therefore, he was entitled for the benefit under the DVC Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme. A plain reading of para2 (b) of the Office Memorandum dated 27.03.1989 discloses that even if the option has not been exercised by an employee for switching over from DVC CPF scheme to DVC Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme the benefit of Pension would be granted to the employee. A plain reading of para2 (b) of the Office Memorandum dated 27.03.1989 discloses that even if the option has not been exercised by an employee for switching over from DVC CPF scheme to DVC Pension-cum-Gratuity Scheme the benefit of Pension would be granted to the employee. Moreover, in the present case, since the husband of the petitioner died on 18.02.1987 and the Office Memo was issued on 27.03.1989, therefore, there was no occasion for the husband of the petitioner to exercise the option as provided under the Office Memo dated 27.03.1989. 9. In view of the aforesaid, this writ petition is allowed.