JUDGMENT 1. - Widow of Late Shri Ramchandra has not been accorded pensionary benefits subsequent to the death of her husband, and therefore, she has been impelled to institute the present writ proceedings, praying for the following relief(s):- "(i) by an appropriate writ, order or direction the respondents may kindly be directed to pay the amount of family pension from the date on which the petitioner became entitled with ail consequential benefits along with interest and continue to pay the same in future and further the respondents may kindly be directed to pay arrears of provident fund and gratuity and other like retiral benefits for which the deceased employee was entitled. (ii) any other order which this Hon’ble court deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be passed in favour of the petitioner. (iii) cost of the writ petition may also be awarded in favour of the petitioner." 2. Briefly, the skeletal material facts necessary for appreciation of the controversy raised are that the Late Shri Ramchandra expired on 16th November, 1974, while working on the post of ‘Beldar’ under the control of the State-respondents. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that she being nominee of the deceased employee (husband), requested for the release of family pension. However, certain amount on account of Contributory Provident Fund was released but pension was not accorded to her. A notice for demand of justice addressed to the respondents through his counsel on 5th June, 2005, did not evoke any response either. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Singodiya, reiterating the pleaded facts and grounds of the writ application has emphatically argued that after the death of petitioner’s husband, the amount of GPF was paid to her but the State-respondents have denied the benefit of family pension though this benefit has been accorded to identically situated persons. 4. According to the learned counsel, in the counter affidavit to the writ application, the respondents have not disputed the fact that petitioner’s husband was appointed on the post of ‘Beldar’ on 1st January, 1961, in sub-Division Nadbai, Pathena Road, District Bharatpur, and he died on 15th November, 1974. 4. According to the learned counsel, in the counter affidavit to the writ application, the respondents have not disputed the fact that petitioner’s husband was appointed on the post of ‘Beldar’ on 1st January, 1961, in sub-Division Nadbai, Pathena Road, District Bharatpur, and he died on 15th November, 1974. It is further asserted that on completion of ten years of service petitioner’s husband ought to have been conferred with the permanent status, but the respondents failed to do so, and therefore, they cannot take advantage of their own wrong, pleading allegedly on the basis of provisions of Work-charged Employees Service Rules, 1964 (for short, ‘Rules of 1964’). Moreover, the controversy raised in the instant writ application is no more res-integra in view of the several opinions of the Coordinate Benches of this Court in the case Baso Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2002 (3) RLR 598 , Smt. Kiran Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2004 (3) RLR 423 and Swaroop Singh v. State of Rajasthan & Ors : 2005 WLC (Raj.) UC 698 . 5. Per contra Dr. A.S. Khangarot, for the State-respondents while supporting the stand of the respondents in not releasing the benefits of family pension to the petitioner asserted that the petitioner’s husband did not complete ten years of service as on 31st March, 1970, therefore, he was not declared permanent. From the reply, it is not discernible as to why the condition of ten years of service was mandatory as on 31st March, 1970, for the purpose of declaration of permanent status, as contemplated under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964. 6. When the matter came up before this Court, on 4th November, 2015, learned counsel for the State-respondents was specifically called upon to inform this court whether the directions made in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi (supra), an identical matter on all fours; have been complied with or not. He was also directed to inform this Court if the judgment in case of Kiran Devi (supra) was subjected to intra court appeal and the result thereupon, for which he sought a little accommodation and the matter was adjourned to 3 20th November, 2015. He was also directed to inform this Court if the judgment in case of Kiran Devi (supra) was subjected to intra court appeal and the result thereupon, for which he sought a little accommodation and the matter was adjourned to 3 20th November, 2015. The order-sheet drawn on 4th November, 2015, reads thus : "Learned counsel for the petitioner relying upon the judgment and order passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition 1898 of 1993(Baso Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 5th August, 2002; reported in RLR 2002 (3) 598 ; and Smt. Kiran Devi v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; RLR 2004 (3) 423 ; submits that the case of the present petitioner is not distinguishable from that of the opinion expressed in the above noted two cases more particularly in case of Smt. Kiran Devi (supra), wherein the State-respondents have complied with the judgment, as would be evident to from the proceedings drawn in Contempt Petition No. 113 of 2008, decided on 1st December, 2008. On being queried about the factual matrix and compliance in case of Smt. Kiran Devi (supra), learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State-respondents prays for a little accommodation to verify the statement made relying upon the opinion of Smt. Kiran Devi (supra). Prayer granted. By the next date, learned counsel for the State-respondents would lay before the court the necessary instructions with reference to query as aforesaid. List the matter on 20th November, 2015. It is made clear that no further time will be allowed on this count." 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has produced certain documents during the course of arguments, from where it is reflected that the directions issued in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi (supra), have been complied with by the State-respondents according benefits to her, as is evident from the counter affidavit filed in response to Contempt Proceedings instituted by Smt. Kiran Devi (supra), in S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 113 of 2008. A copy of which has already been furnished to the counsel for the State- respondents. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar. 9. A copy of which has already been furnished to the counsel for the State- respondents. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the materials available on record as well as gave my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions at Bar. 9. indisputably, the petitioner’s husband Late Shri Ramchandra was appointed on the post of ‘Beldar’ on 1st January, 1961, in Sub-Division Nadbai, Pathena Road, District Bharatpur, who died on 15th November, 1974. The reasons for not according permanent status, as contemplated under Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964, are not discernible from the entire counter affidavit filed in response to notice of the writ application. Learned counsel for the respondents could not furnish any reason for the crucial date i.e. 31st March, 1970, by which the petitioner’s husband did not complete ten years of service and for that the permanent status was not conferred upon him. 10. The categorisation of Work-charged Employees has been spelt out under part-II of the ‘General Service Conditions’ of the ‘Rules of 1964’, which reads thus:- "3. Categorisation:- (1) Work Charged employees (including the regular technical staff of Water Works Department) for the purpose of these rules shall be divided into the following three categories:- (1) Permanent status, (ii) Semi-permanent status, and (iii) Casual: Provided, however, that nothing in these rules shall entitle any work-charged employee, categorised permanent or semi-permanent to claim the status or benefits of permanency or semi-permanency to which a regular Government employees is entitled under the Rajasthan Service Rules. (2) Employees, who have been in service for ten years or more, shall be eligible for the status of permanent work-charged employees provided their record of service, in the opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory. (3)Employees in continuous service for two years or more except those covered by sub-rule (1), shall be eligible for the status of semi-permanent regular technical staff, provided their record of service in the opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory. (4) No employee shall acquire the status specified in sub-rules (2) and (3 without the prior sanction of the competent of the Department from time to time." 11. (4) No employee shall acquire the status specified in sub-rules (2) and (3 without the prior sanction of the competent of the Department from time to time." 11. A glance of Rule 3 of the Rules of 1964, as extracted herein above, would reveal that for the purpose of the rules, the Work-charged employees have been divided into three categories i.e. (i) permanent status (ii) semipermanent status and (iii) casual ; Rule 3(2), contemplates that the employees who have been in service for ten years or more will be eligible for the status of permanent work-charged employees provided their record of service, in the opinion of the competent authority, is satisfactory. If the respondents did not confer the permanent status, even after completion of ten years, fairly for a long time then they cannot take advantage of their own wrong to decline the benefit of family pension to the petitioner. 12. In the case of Baso Devi, while dealing with the somewhat similar controversy a Coordinate Bench of this court, held thus "7. Undeniably the husband of the petitioner at the time of his death was holding at the time of his death was holding the post of Helper Grade I in the Work Charged Cadre. The State Government by memorandum dated January 31, 1977 conveyed the decision of the Government of Rajasthan that the work-charged employees who were absorbed/appointed on regular post on conversion of workcharged post into regular post under the Govt, from time to time be allowed to exercise the option to elect either to continue the contribution towards Provident Fund or to opt for pensionary benefits. By order dated July 23, 1977, the Govt, passed another order adding para 9 to the memorandum dated January 31, 1977 as under: Government of Rajasthan Finance (Gr.) Department Memo "No. F.1 (26) FD (Gr.2)/74 dated Jaipur, the 10th March, 1977 Sub : Counting the Work-charged service for pension on absorption/appointment of work-charged Employees on regular post under the Government. The Governor are pleased to order that after existing para 8 the following para may be added in the Finance Department order of even number dated 31.1.1977 namely; 13. The Governor are pleased to order that after existing para 8 the following para may be added in the Finance Department order of even number dated 31.1.1977 namely; 13. The controversy of similar nature again fell for consideration of another Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Kiran Devi (supra); wherein Late Shri Gulab Singh husband of the petitioner-Smt. Kiran Devi, was working as ‘Beldar’, a Work-charged employee since 23rd December, 1978, and the petitioner’s husband died on 18th May, 1991. But his services were not regularised during his life time under the Rules of 1964. 14. Repelling the defence of the State-respondents for the petitioner-Smt. Kiran Devi was paid some of Rs. 3536/- on account of GPF and option was not submitted by late Shri Gulab Singh until his death; a direction was made in the backdrop of sub-rule (6) of Rule 22-A read with notification dated 11th December, 1989, family pension in favour of Smt. Kiran Devi (supra). The orders made have been complied with during the course of Contempt Proceedings instituted by Smt. Kiran Devi, wife of Late Shri Gulab Singh, as would be reflected from the documents produced today for perusal of the Court by the counsel for the petitioner, which reflects that Smt. Kiran Devi (supra), has been granted family pension @ 406/- w.e.f. 19th May, 1991 to 18th May, 1998 and thereafter Rs. 300/- per month with D.R. admissible thereon as per rules upto re-marriage/death whichever is earlier, vide an order FPPO No. 114464 (R) SF dated 10th July, 2008, and further amount of gratuity was also paid to her, vide an order GPO No. 273601 (R), No. 273602 (R), No. 273603 (R), No. 273604 (R), No. 273605 (R) & No. 273606 (R) dated 10th July, 2008. 15. In the case of Swaroop Singh (supra), wherein the work-charged employee declared permanent on completion of ten years service was entitled to opt for pension such a prayer could not have been declined in the backdrop of sub-rule (1) of Rule 22-A of the Rules of 1964. Further, the Coordinate Bench made a direction to the State-respondents to accord pension to the petitioner (Swaroop Singh), the accordance with the rules, after adjusting the amount of CPF and the arrears of pension were to be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of the order. 16. Further, the Coordinate Bench made a direction to the State-respondents to accord pension to the petitioner (Swaroop Singh), the accordance with the rules, after adjusting the amount of CPF and the arrears of pension were to be paid to the petitioner within three months from the date of the order. 16. During the course of pendency of the writ proceedings, the petitioner wife of late Shri Ramchandra died on 12th April, 2008, and her legal representatives have been brought on record. 17. For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ application succeeds and is hereby allowed. 18. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and accord her family pension within a period of three months from the date of copy of the judgment is produced before them adjusting the amount of Contributory Provident Fund towards the account of balance of legal representatives of the petitioner and release the arrears of pension accrued to the petitioner (deceased).Writ petition allowed. *******