JUDGMENT By Court. - The petitioner has approached this Court seeking a direction upon the respondents for payment of the benefits under the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971. 2. By filing I.A. No 3516 of 2011, order dated 12.11.2003 whereby the claim of the petitioner was rejected, has been brought on record. A prayer seeking amendment in the prayer clause of the writ petition was made which was allowed by order dated 11.04.2013 and thus, order dated 12.11.2003 has also been challenged by the petitioner. 3. The brief facts of the case as disclosed in the writ petition are that, the petitioner is the widow of one Harilal Chauhan, who was working in M/s Katras Ceramics & Refractories Pvt. Ltd, Dhanbad. The husband of the petitioner died on 16.03.1979. It is stated that the employer contributed its contribution to the family pension fund from August, 1975 to February, 1979, however, after the death of the husband of the petitioner, petitioner was not granted the benefits under the Employees' Family Pension Scheme and the claim of the petitioner for grant of monthly family pension has been rejected by order dated 12.11.2003. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it has been stated that after the receipt of the application from the petitioner for grant of the benefits under Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, the employer of the husband of the petitioner was asked to provide details of his employment. The documents supplied by the employer contained Form 10-A, 3-A and 6-A. A plea has been taken that the management of the establishment under which the petitioner's husband was employed, failed to substantiate that at the time of his death the husband of the petitioner was on the roll of the company and, therefore, the petitioner was not entitled for grant of family pension. It has further been pointed out that in the document which has been provided as Form 3-A, two columns namely, the date of the death and the reason for leaving the service are interpolated or left blank which creates doubt. By filing a supplementary-affidavit, copies of Form 10-A and other documents have been brought on record. It has further been pointed out that in the document which has been provided as Form 3-A, two columns namely, the date of the death and the reason for leaving the service are interpolated or left blank which creates doubt. By filing a supplementary-affidavit, copies of Form 10-A and other documents have been brought on record. It is stated that there are two Form 10-A and in both Form 10-A, the signature of the petitioner is not tallying and the date of death of the petitioner's husband was initially written as 18.01.1979 and thereafter, it was struck off and corrected as 16.03.1979. In view of the aforesaid, it has been contended that the claim of the petitioner is shrouded in mystery and it raises serious suspicion and doubt and therefore, it cannot be granted as it is not established that the husband of the petitioner died while on the roll of the establishment. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on paragraph No. 28 of the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971, which deals with family pension and paragraph No. 2(f) as well as 9(2-A) raises a contention that this is not the requirement under the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 that, the employee should have been on the roll of the management at the time of his/her death. Only requirement for grant of benefit under the scheme has been dealt with under paragraph no. 28 and that is, the reckonable service, which has been defined in Paragraph No. 2(f) of the said Scheme of 1971. Only requirement for grant of benefit under the scheme has been dealt with under paragraph no. 28 and that is, the reckonable service, which has been defined in Paragraph No. 2(f) of the said Scheme of 1971. The relevant provisions of the Scheme are extracted below: “2(f) 'reckonable service' means service rendered by a member of the Family Pension Fund in respect of which contributions are payable under this Scheme [and includes any person of service in respect of which no wages are drawn by such member on account of temporary closure of the establishment, strike, lock-out or leave without pay, or for any other reason, of a similar nature or otherwise, and in respect of which contributions (both the member's and employer's shares) are payable by diversion from his Provident Fund Account as provided in sub-paragraph (2-A) of paragraph 9 of this Scheme : Provided that no period of service, in respect of which no wages are drawn by a member - (i) after the name of the member has been struck off from the rolls of the employer of the member; or (ii) which is in excess of one year ; or (iii) after there ceases to be any amount in the Fund or in the provident fund of an exempted establishment, as the case may be, lying to the credit of the member concerned, shall be treated as reckonable service]” 9(2-A) The Commissioner or in the case of an exempted establishment the authority in charge of the provident fund of that establishment, on being satisfied that there is a period of service without wages which is to be treated as reckonable service, under sub-paragraph (f) of paragraph 2 of this Scheme, shall remit to the Family Pension Fund, from and out of the amounts contributed respectively by the employer and employee and lying to the member's credit together with interest thereon, in the Fund or in the Provident Fund of the exempted establishment, as the case may be, an amount equal to the contributions payable at the rates specified in sub-paragraph (1) by the employer and the employee for the said period and the Central Government shall also contribute for the said period an amount equal to the, contributions payable at the rates specified in sub-paragraph (2).] 28. Rate of Family Pension-(1) In the case of a member who being a member of the Family Pension Fund dies during the period of reckonable service before attaining the age of 60 years, family pension shall be paid at the rates specified in the Table below subject to the condition that (he has contributed to the Family Pension Fund for a period of not less than one year).” 7. The learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents vehemently argued that the very nature of the scheme stipulates that the employee must be on the roll of the management at the time of his/her death otherwise, the benefits of the Scheme cannot be extended to the dependents of deceased employees. He has further submitted that in the counter-affidavit, it has been specifically pointed out that interpolation has been done with a view to make a claim for the petitioner. 8. The stand taken by the respondents in the counter-affidavit dated 20.01.2004 is extracted below : 7.“..........It is relevant to mention here that the matter of sanction of pension to Smt. Kusum Chauhan widow of late Harihar Chauhan (BR/2244/16) came before the sanctioning authority. It was observed that the claim for monthly family pension has been submitted in this office after lapse of long period. Hence, it was found necessary to verify the genuineness as well as entitlement of the claimant. In the annual returns (Form No. 3A) the contribution and wages of the member has been shown up to the middle of month of January, 1979 payable and paid in the month of February, 1979. In the Form no. 3A two columns have been mentioned which have been left blank by the establishment. These columns are (a) Date of leaving service (b) reason for leaving service. Further in the year 1979-80 the name of member Sri Harilal Chauhan neither figures in annual returns Form-3A or Form-6A. The enforcement officer was deputed to verify the fact that whether the member died while on the roll of the establishment. Death on the roll of the establishment is essential requirement for sanction of pension under family pension scheme, 1971. The establishment is lying closed since last so many years and the management of the establishment failed to substantiate the death of the member while on the roll of the establishment. The Enforcement officer obtained a photocopy of an old record pertaining to P.F. membership. The establishment is lying closed since last so many years and the management of the establishment failed to substantiate the death of the member while on the roll of the establishment. The Enforcement officer obtained a photocopy of an old record pertaining to P.F. membership. As per the photocopy of this record the date of leaving service of the member has been mentioned as 16.03.79 after scoring a date already written as 18.01.79. The date of leaving as 18.01.79 conforms with the return submitted by the establishment. Further in the column of reason for leaving service “died” has been written over. It appears that the date of leaving service and reason for leaving service is an after thought and tampered to make the widow eligible for monthly family pension after a long period. Further it was found that the establishment is having no records to substantiate the death of the member while on the roll of the establishment but it is certifying the death of member, while on the roll of the establishment after a lapse of more than 20 years...................” 9. An affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent No. 4 reiterating that the husband of the petitioner died while on the roll of the establishment. 10. A perusal of the provisions as contained in Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 would disclose that an employee would be entitled for grant of benefits under the said Scheme, if the contribution by the employer has been paid regularly and it has been paid for a minimum period of one year. The date of death of the employee is of no relevance. The documents which have been brought on record and which have been relied upon by the respondents were the documents which were in the custody of the management and they are not the beneficiaries and therefore, it cannot be said that there are interpolations in the entries with a view to make a claim for the petitioner. 11. Learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that there is gross delay and latches on the part of the petitioner for raising her claim and on this ground alone, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner died long back and the petitioner, an illiterate lady could not raise her claim within time. Admittedly, the husband of the petitioner died long back and the petitioner, an illiterate lady could not raise her claim within time. On this ground claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected. 12. In “S.K. Mastan Bee Vs. General Manager, South Central Railway and Another”, reported in (2003) 1 SCC 184 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was obligatory for the employer to compute the family pension payable to the dependent of the deceased employee and offer the same to the wife of the deceased employee. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under, 6. “We notice that the appellant's husband was working as a Gangman who died while in service. It is on record that the appellant is an illiterate who at that time did not know of her legal right and had no access to any information as to her right to family pension and 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 this case to have computed 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 as held by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench is an erroneous decision on the part of the Railways and in fact amounting to violation of the guarantee assured to the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution...............” 13. It is not denied by the respondents that the petitioner is an illiterate lady. A perusal of Form 10-A would clearly disclose that the signature of the petitioner resembles the signature of a person who does not know writing even Hindi and that may be the reason why in another Form 10-A, she put her left thumb impression. It may be a mistake committed by the management however, for this reason the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected. Also, for this reason, it cannot be said that it has not been established that the husband of the petitioner died while on the roll of the industry. It may be a mistake committed by the management however, for this reason the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected. Also, for this reason, it cannot be said that it has not been established that the husband of the petitioner died while on the roll of the industry. Moreover, as already noticed above, the date of death of the husband of the petitioner is irrelevant and whether the husband of the petitioner died on 18.01.1979 or on 16.03.1979, is immaterial for the purpose of grant of benefit under the Scheme of 1971. In terms of paragraph-28 of the Scheme, the only requirement for grant of benefit is payment of contribution for a minimum period of one year. In paragraph-28, it has been clearly mentioned that in the event of the death of an employee, his/her family would be entitled for grant of family pension. 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this writ petition is allowed and Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 are directed to calculate the claim of the petitioner and pay the petitioner all the admissible benefits under the Employees' Family Pension Scheme, 1971 within the period of eight weeks from the date of production of a copy of this order.