ORDER : Instant special appeal is directed against order of the learned Single Judge impugned dated 11.05.2004. 2. The respondent before us is a widow of deceased-Bashir Khan who was appointed as Helper on 21.11.1971 in the erstwhile Rajasthan State Electricity Board who was thereafter confirmed and was fixed in the regular pay scale and on confirmation he became the member of the Employees Family Pension Scheme, 1971 (for short, Scheme 1971) and Account No. RJ1919/712 was allotted to him and deductions indisputably from the salary were continuously made from October, 1972 and unfortunately he died in accident on 24.04.1973 and on account of which further contribution automatically stopped. The illiterate widow was not aware of this fact that she is entitled for family pension under the Scheme 1971 of which her husband was the member and he made contribution for the period he served the organization. Some wise person came to her rescue and she approached the authorities with the grievance that after the provisions of the Scheme 1971 stands saved by the Employees Pension Scheme 1995 (for short, Scheme 1995) and Para 16 of the Scheme indicates that benefit to the family on the death of a member can be claimed provided the member has made at least one month contribution into the Employee Provident Fund, she is entitled to claim family pension. Indisputably, in the instant case her husband made his regular contribution after became member of the Scheme 1971 from October, 1972 till he survived upto April 1973 and when her entitlement was not acknowledged by the appellant, the widow approached this Court by filing of writ petition. 3. After the matter being heard, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition vide order dated 11.05.2004 holding her entitlement for family pension in terms of para 16 of the Scheme 1995. 4. Earlier also the self same controversy came up before this court in DB Special Appeal (W) No.579/2004 filed at the instance of the present appellant, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur came to be decided vide order dated 6.4.2016. 5. 4. Earlier also the self same controversy came up before this court in DB Special Appeal (W) No.579/2004 filed at the instance of the present appellant, the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Jaipur came to be decided vide order dated 6.4.2016. 5. Counsel for the appellant submits that two years is the minimum contribution which the employee has to pay to seek family pension under the Scheme of 1971/1995 and indisputably when the respondent's husband has not made the payment of contribution for two years which is the minimum period required could not claim the family pension under the Scheme 1971 or Scheme 1995 apart from the fact that there was inordinate delay in making her claim and in both the counts she is disentitled to claim family pension and this what the learned Single Judge has not considered under order impugned. 6. Both the submissions are without substance for the reason that two years is the minimum period of contribution in the ordinary course but may not apply where exigencies are beyond control and after the employee who is contributing his monthly contribution and continue to be a member of the Scheme 1971 if died before completion of the period of two years the family of the deceased employee could not be deprived of the legitimate right of family pension and the scheme has been framed with an object to provide a social protection to the members of the deceased employee which has been taken note of under the Scheme 1995 and para 16 in particular of which reference has been made. 7. Indisputably, in the instant case also, the deceased employee after became member of the Scheme 1971 was making his regular contribution from October, 1972 till his last breath and if unable to complete period of two years period of service as member of the Scheme 1971 that will not deprive the family members of the deceased employee at least to claim family pension and no rule to the contrary under Scheme 1971/1995 has been brought to the notice of the Court disentitling to claim of the widow. 8. 8. As regards the question of delay is concerned, since no third party rights are conferred in the meanwhile and the widow is approaching from pillar to post to claim legitimate rights under the Scheme for family pension and being a beneficial Scheme 1971/1995 and she could not be deprived of her legitimate right to claim family pension to which she is otherwise entitled for under the law. 9. After we have heard counsel for the parties and taking note of the view earlier expressed by this Court in the order dated 6.4.2016 in SAW 519/2004 referred to supra, we find no error in the order of the learned Single Judge which may call for our interference. 10. Counsel for the respondents submits that much water has flown and the lady is not being paid even her legitimate dues so far. 11. We hope and trust that the appellant will make compliance of the order and make payment of dues within a period of three months. 12. Consequently, the special appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly, dismissed.