ORDER : Sujoy Paul, J. The petitioners have fought a long drawn battle in the corridors of the Court. This matter has a checkquered history. 2. Draped in brevity, the relevant facts are that the wife of petitioner No.1 was working as Assistant in respondent Corporation. She died on 27/09/1998. The petitioner No.2 was minor at the time of death of her mother. The petitioner No.1 preferred a representation for grant of pension as per the rules namely Life Insurance Corporation of India (employees) Pension Rules 1995 (herein after called as "Pension Rules"). Since pension was not released in favour of the petitioners, the petitioner No.1 filed W.P. No.5141/2006 before this Court which was disposed of on 18/12/2008. The respondents/Corporation was directed to dwell upon the claim put-forth by the petitioners and pass a suitable cogent order within stipulated time. 3. Shri Manoj Chandurker, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in obedience of this Court's order, the respondents were required to pass a reasoned order. However, by communication dated 27/02/2009 (Annexure-P/5) the respondents/Corporation informed the petitioner that a testamentary petition is filed by brother of the deceased at Bombay High Court. Since that matter is pending, it is impossible for Corporation to make payment of pensionary benefits in favour of the petitioners. 4. Shri Chandurker contends that the said testamentary petition was dismissed on 25/06/2010 (Annexure-P/6). Thereafter, petitioner preferred another representation through his counsel Annexure-P/7. In turn, the respondents by communication dated 20/12/2010 informed that the respondents have taken necessary steps for finalising the pension matter. The said communication is followed by impugned order dated 25/02/2013 (Annexure-P/9). By criticising this order, Shri Chandurker submits that this order runs contrary to the Pension Rules. In the order it is mentioned that the pension was sanctioned in favour of petitioner No.2 (son of the deceased). The petitioner No.2 was directed to obtain a No Objection from petitioner No.1. In addition, the declaration was desired from both the petitioners that any grant of pension will remain subject to outcome of legal proceedings initiated by Shri Gauri Charan Dubey (brother of the deceased). 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this action of the respondents in depriving the petitioner No.1 from the fruits of pension is impermissible. As per rules, petitioner No.1 has first right to get the pension. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this action of the respondents in depriving the petitioner No.1 from the fruits of pension is impermissible. As per rules, petitioner No.1 has first right to get the pension. The respondents have adopted the aforesaid modus operandi with a view to stop pension in favour of petitioner No.2 soon he attains the age of 25 years. 6. It is submitted that petitioner No.2 has also joined in the present petition which shows that he is also aggrieved by impugned order Annexure-P/9. 7. Shri Mukhtar Ahmed, learned counsel for the Corporation supported the order Annexure-P/9. Shri Ahmed drew the attention of this Court on the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 5141/2006 dated 18/12/2008. He submits that a plain reading of this order makes it clear that petitioner No.1 approached this Court with a prayer that the pension be released in favour of the petitioner No.2. After having taken such a stand, the petitioner is estopped from claiming pension under the rules. Putting it differently, Shri Ahmed contends that petitioner has waived his right to claim pension, in view of, petitioners stand recorded in the order sheet dated 18/12/2008. Shri Ahmed further contends that the petitioner unsuccessfully made an effort to seek review of the order passed in W.P. No.5141/2006. His W.P. No.2845/2012 and subsequent R.P. No.472/2013 were not entertained. In the result, petitioner No.1 cannot claim pension. Reliance is placed on 1992 (Supplementary 1 SCC 5) Jaswant Singh Mathura Singh v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation and Others. No other point is pressed by the learned counsel for the parties. 8. I have bestowed my anxious consideration on the rival contentions advanced by the parties and perused the record. 9. Before dealing with the rival stand, I deem it apposite to quote the relevant provisions from the Pension Rules. The "family" is defined as under in the said Rules: "Wife in the case of a male employee or husband in the case of a female employee. A judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery. Son who has not attained the age of 25 years and unmarried daughter who has not attained the aged of 25 years including such son or daughter adopted legally before retirement."(E.S) 10. A judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery. Son who has not attained the age of 25 years and unmarried daughter who has not attained the aged of 25 years including such son or daughter adopted legally before retirement."(E.S) 10. A plain reading of this definition shows that husband of the deceased is included in the definition of family. The main issue needs consideration is whether petitioner No.1 can be deprived from the fruits of pension on the basis of facts mentioned in the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 5141/2006. 11. If the order dated 18/12/2008 passed in W.P. No.5141/2006 is read in its entirety, it will be clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. This Court only directed the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner by cogent order. There is no undertaking by the petitioner in the said case that he has waived his right to claim pension under the Pension Rules. Thus, the question is whether the principle of waiver/estopple can be invoked in the factual backdrop of this matter? 12. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said principle has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. This is trite law that no estopple operates against the statute AIR 1955 SC 504 (Thakur Amar Singhji and others v. State of Rajasthan and others) and 1999 (6) SCC 464 (M.I. Builders Pvt. Ltd. v. Radhey Shyam Sahu and others) 13. So far the question of waiver is concerned, merely because it is recorded in order dated 18/12/2008 that petitioner No.1 is claiming pension for his son, it by no stage of imagination can deprive the petitioner No.1 to seek pension. Petitioner No.1, in the teeth of pension rules is entitled to get pension because he falls within the ambit of "family." 14. Thus, in my view, the action of respondents in depriving the petitioner No.1 from the fruits of pension runs contrary to the rules and the same is impermissible. 15. This is a well settled that pension and retiral dues are not bounty. The same falls within the ambit of 'property' flowing from Article 300-A of the Constitution. Thus, in my view, the action of respondents in depriving the petitioner No.1 from the fruits of pension runs contrary to the rules and the same is impermissible. 15. This is a well settled that pension and retiral dues are not bounty. The same falls within the ambit of 'property' flowing from Article 300-A of the Constitution. In catena of judgments it was held that a person can be deprived from the fruits of property/retiral dues only when law permits to do so. This Court in 2013 (4) MPLJ 35 (Bhaskar Ramchandra Joshi v. State of M.P and others) has considered the legal journey on this aspect and opined as under: "The Apex Court on different occasions had considered the scope and ambit of property. In Madhav Rao Scindia v. Union of India, AIR 1971 SC 530 opined that Privy Purse payable to ex-rulers is property. In Nagraj, K v. State of A.P., AIR 1985 SC 553, Apex Court opined that right of person to his livelihood is property which is subject to rules of retirement. In State of Kerala v. Padmanabhan, AIR 1985 SC 356 the Apex Court opined that right of pension is property under the Government Service Rules. In Madhav Rao Scindia v. State of M.P., AIR 1961 SC 298 and State of M.P. v. Ranojirao, 1968 MPLJ (S.C) 785 : AIR 1968 SC 1053 , the Apex Court opined that property in the context of Article 300-A includes 'money', salary which has accrued pension, and cash grants annually payable by the Government; pension due under Government Service Rules; a right to bonus and other sums due to employees under statute. This view was also taken in 1971 M.P.L.J (S.C) Note 56 = AIR 1971 SC 1409 , Deokinandan v. State of Bihar. Bombay High Court in the case reported in 2012(3) Mh.L.J 126 . Shapoor M. Mehta v. Allahabad Bank opined that retiral benefits including pension and gratuity constitute a valuable right in property. In Deokinandan (Supra) Apex Court opined as under: "(i) The right of the petitioner to receive pension is property under Article 31 (1) and by a mere executive order the State had no powers to withhold the same. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Article 19 (1) (f) and it is not saved by sub-article (5) of Article 19. Similarly, the said claim is also property under Article 19 (1) (f) and it is not saved by sub-article (5) of Article 19. Therefore, it follows that the order denying the petitioner right to receive pension affects the fundamental right of the petitioner under Article 19 (1) (f) and 31 (1) of the Constitution and as such the writ petition under Article 32 is maintainable." 16. In the light of aforesaid, it is clear that there is no enabling provision under the Pension Rule which deprives the petitioner No.1 from the fruits of pension. The judgments relied upon by Shri Ahmed in the case of Jaswant Singh, Mathura Singh (Supra) has no application in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Petitioners case is squarely covered by the Rules and the respondents/Corporation should have decided their claim strictly in accordance with rules. 17. As analyzed above, the petition deserves to succeed. Resultantly, the impugned order dated 25/02/2013 is quashed. The respondents are directed to pay pension to the petitioner No.1 in accordance with Pension Rules. The entire exercise be completed within 90 days from today. The petitioners shall also be entitled to get interest @ 12%, P.A, in view of the judgment of Supreme Court reported in 1994 (2) SCC 240 Union of India v. Justice S.S. Sandhawalia (Retd.) and others and Justice S.S Sandhawalia (Retd.) v. Union of India and Others. The respondents shall pay Rs. 5,000/- as cost to the petitioners. The petition is allowed.