JUDGMENT 1. - This miscellaneous appeal under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter `the 1925 Act') has been filed against the order dated 7-2-2008 passed by the Additional District Judge, Khetri, on an application under Section 372 of the 1925 Act filed by the plaintiff respondent No.1 Bakhtawari Devi (hereinafter `the plaintiff'). Thereby the learned Judge bifurcated the family pension payable on the death of constable Jagroop Singh working with Border Security Force between non-applicant his widow Savita Devi and the applicant mother Bakhtawari Devi. 2. The facts of the case are that the mother of late constable Jagroop Singh working with 86 Bn. Border Security Force filed an application under Section 372 of the 1925 Act impleading as non-applicants Savita Devi widow of constable Jagroop Singh as also authorities of the Border Security Force. It was stated that the applicant Bakhtawari, the mother of constable Jagroop Singh working with Border Security Force was entitled to half of the normal family pension in view of the fact that constable Jagroop Singh's widow Savita Devi had since re-married. The application was opposed both by the non applicants widow Savita Devi as also the Border Security Forcenow the appellant. It was stated that as per Rule 4(2) of the Central Civil Services (Liberalized Pensionary Award) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter `the CCS (LPA) Rules, 1972') Savita Devi the widow of late constable Jagroop Singh alone was entitled to normal family pension even after her re-marriage and had been availing the said pension for the last over nine years. 3. On the matter coming up before the court below, the issue struck was as to whether the applicant Bakhtawari Devi as the mother of deceased constable Jagroop Singh was entitled to half of the normal family pension? The court below even while noticing the CCS (LPA) Rules, 1972 where under only the widow of late employee of Border Security Force was entitled to normal family pension, even after re-marriage, oddly adverted to the Family Pension Rules (Defence), to hold that the applicant Bakhtawari Devi was entitled to 50% of the normal family pension with the remainder 50% of the normal family pension going to the widow's account after her remarriage. 4. Hence this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 7-2-2008 passed by the court below. 6. 4. Hence this appeal. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order dated 7-2-2008 passed by the court below. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned order is illegal, contrary to the governing provisions of the CCS (LPA) Rules, 1972 relevant to the employees of Border Security Force. He submitted that the CCS (LPA) Rules, 1972 for the employees of Border Security Force are wholly distinct and different from that of the Pension Rules (Defence) as obtaining in the Army. Learned court below misdirected itself in overlooking in spite of noticing the relevant pension rules applicable to BSF employees i.e. the CCS (LPA) Rules, 1972. Referring to Appendix IV of the CCS (LPA) Rules, 1972 it was submitted that in terms thereof only the widow of a deceased employee of Border Security Force was entitled to liberalized family pension during her widowhood and thereafter the normal family pension even in the event of her remarriage. 7. Mr. Rajpal Chaudhary, appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1-applicant has however supported the impugned order dated 72-2008. 8. Heard. Considered. 9. It is nobody's case that services of Border Security Force are identical services with the Army. Admittedly the pension rules in respect of these two services BSF on the one hand and the Army on the other, are independent and different to each other. The court below has committed gross error in adjudicating the issue of entitlement to normal family pension under the governing BSF Rules with reference to Pension Regulations of the Defence department which were wholly extraneous to the issue. Admittedly the late constable Jagroop Singh was an employee of the Border Security Force. The provisions of the CCS (LPA) Rules, 1972 alone would determine the issue of pension in the event of his death. Rule 4(2) of the CCS (LPA) Rules, 1972 makes it clear that in the event of remarriage of the widow of its employee, she alone would be entitled to normal family pension. There under the widow of late constable Jagroop Singh was alone entitled to normal family pension. And in fact was receiving it for the last several years. The applicant mother of late Constable Jagroop Singh had no right in law to claim half of the normal family pension. There under the widow of late constable Jagroop Singh was alone entitled to normal family pension. And in fact was receiving it for the last several years. The applicant mother of late Constable Jagroop Singh had no right in law to claim half of the normal family pension. The court below even while noticing the governing BSF pension rules misdirected itself in adjudicating the issue with reference to the pension regulations relevant to the defence department (Army). That is a palpable error which needs to be rectified in this appeal. 10. Consequently, the miscellaneous appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 7-2-2008 passed by the court below the Additional District Judge Khetri is set aside.Appeal allowed. *******