JUDGMENT : AJAY RASTOGI, J. 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the widow and mother of the deceased employee who died while serving as constable on 28th September, 1997 and later she lost her husband on 15th October, 2001 harping upon their rights to claim family pension being the wholly dependent parent of the deceased Govt. servant immediately after the amendment being made vide memorandum dated 16th August, 1999, extending the definition of the term family by inserting Clause (IV) to proviso 14(b) to Rule-54 to the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to Rules, 1972). 2. The facts in brief manifest from the records relevant for the present purpose are that the petitioner’s son namely, late Nirmal Chandra Das joined service as a constable in the Home Department, Govt. of Tripura and before he could see the echelons of service career and could solemnize marriage, in a very short span unfortunately died on 28th of September, 1997 leaving the parents in shock and pain. The survival certificate was issued to the members of the family of late employee dated 29th October, 1997, indicating only the name of his parents, Sri Abinash Ch. Das and mother Smt. Nirada Bala Das (petitioner) who were Sr. citizens at the time of his death. 3. Having no source of income and whatever the resources available at their command was spent to brought up their son, who left them alone and unfortunately died in a very short span after joining service on 28th September, 1997 indisputedly at the time of his death, parents were not eligible for family pension but after extension of the definition of the term family on inserting Clause-IV to Proviso-14(b) to Rule-54 to Rules, 1972 under memorandum dated 16th August, 1999, which came into effect on 1st January, 1999, making the parents who are solely dependent on the late Govt. servant at the time of his death eligible for family pension. It reveals from the record and evident from the letter sent from the office of Superintendent of Police (RSV), West Tripura, Agartala dated 7th July, 2017 (Annexure-7) addressed to the Accountant General (A & E) that the husband of the petitioner Lt. Abhinash Ch. servant at the time of his death eligible for family pension. It reveals from the record and evident from the letter sent from the office of Superintendent of Police (RSV), West Tripura, Agartala dated 7th July, 2017 (Annexure-7) addressed to the Accountant General (A & E) that the husband of the petitioner Lt. Abhinash Ch. Das in his life time came forward for claiming family pension as dependent parents, but it appears that no one has paid any heed to his request and while pursuing the claim for release of family pension, he too lost his life on 15th of October, 2001. The widow who is an illiterate lady came in financial distress reveals from the record that she has put her thumb impression in the petition and the documents annexed thereto. 4. Indisputedly, no action was taken on the claim which her husband earlier made to the department for release of family pension in his life time, the petitioner approached to the office of the S.P. West Tripura, Agartala, through her well-wishers took her thumb impressions, evident from (Annexure-6) and her application was forwarded by the S.P. West Tripura, Agartala, on 7th July, 2017 for sanctioning family pension to the office of the Accountant General. That application came to be rejected & communication was made to the petitioner dated 6th of November, 2017, holding that the family pension is not entitled to the parents of the deceased Govt. employee who died before 01.01.1999 and that became the subject matter of challenge at the instance of the widow after she lost every hopes from the administration invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the memorandum dated 16th of August, 1999 has enlarged the scope of the term family by inserting Clause-(IV) to Proviso-14(b) of Rule-54 of the Rules, 1972 vide memorandum dated 16th August, 1999 and holding the dependent parents eligible for family pension from 01.01.1999. 6. Counsel submits that the reason which has been assigned by the respondents in their communication rejecting her claim dated 06.11.2017 that family pension is not admissible to the parents of the deceased Govt. employee who died before 01.01.1999 is a misinterpretation of the memorandum dated 16th August, 1999 and the dependant parents of the deceased Govt. 6. Counsel submits that the reason which has been assigned by the respondents in their communication rejecting her claim dated 06.11.2017 that family pension is not admissible to the parents of the deceased Govt. employee who died before 01.01.1999 is a misinterpretation of the memorandum dated 16th August, 1999 and the dependant parents of the deceased Govt. employee became eligible for family pension under memorandum dated 16th August, 1999 w.e.f. 01.01.1999 in disregard to the date of death of the Govt. employee and any other interpretation leads to discriminate amongst the dependent parents of the deceased employee who died before or after 01.01.1999 which may be in violation of Art. 14 of the Constitution of India. 7. Counsel for the petitioner submits that 01.01.1999 is basically a date of eligibility to the dependent parents on the Govt. servant when he/she was alive, for grant of family pension and certainly that makes the homogeneous class of the dependent parents having no co-relation with the date of death of the Govt. employee and the effective date of 01.01.1999 under memorandum dated 16th August, 1999 is having nexus to hold the dependent parents eligible for family pension in disregard to the date of death payable w.e.f. 01.01.1999 provided, the dependent parents fulfill the conditions under Clause-IV to Proviso-14(b) of Rule-54 of Rules, 1972 and place reliance on a judgment of a Single Bench of this Court, in Chandana Roy and Another vs. State of Tripura and Others, (2007) 2 GLR 692 which came to be confirmed with certain modifications by the Division Bench in the case of Chandana Roy and Another vs. State of Tripura and Others, 2008 (Supp.) GLT 764. 8. Taking assistance of the judgment relied upon, counsel for the petitioner submits that in the given circumstances, the reason assigned by the respondents rejecting the claim for family pension holding that family pension is not entitled to the parents of the deceased Govt. servant who died before 01.01.1999 is a misinterpretation of the notification dated 16th of August, 1999 and the communication dated 6th of November, 2017, deserved to be quashed and set aside and the respondents may be directed to release the family pension to the widow mother of the deceased from the date it became admissible with interest which this Court may consider to be appropriate in the facts and circumstance of the case. 9. 9. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents and the sole defence is that since the Govt. employee died before 01.01.1999 as such, the parents of the late Govt. servant are not entitled for family pension in terms of the memorandum dated 16th of August, 1999 effective from 01.01.1999. 10. Counsel for the respondents further submits that there is an inordinate delay of 19 years in filing of the writ petition that in itself disentitle the petitioner claiming family pension invoking the jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India and on this ground alone, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed and in support of submission placed reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Government of India and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 709 and Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala, through its Managing Director and Others vs. S.K. Sharma and Others, (2016) 9 SCC 206 . 11. Counsel further submits that since the memorandum dated 16th of August, 1999 or the cut-off date 01.01.1999 is not being questioned/challenged by the petitioner in absence thereof, the submission made by the petitioner regarding applicability of the notification dated 16th of August, 1999 to the parents, who as alleged being dependent upon the Govt. servant died before 01.01.1999, is not open for further scrutiny by this Court. 12. Counsel further submits that even in the facts and circumstances what being pleaded by the petitioner, even if taken at the face value, still, it has not been pleaded that the petitioner was wholly dependent upon the Govt. servant when he was alive at least as on 28.09.1997 in absence thereof, the petitioner is otherwise not entitled for family pension as being claimed under notification dated 16th of August, 1999. 13. I have heard counsel for the parties and with their assistance perused the material available on record. 14. Before this Court may proceed with the matter any further, considers appropriate to take note of the scheme of Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 in substance adopted by the Govt. of Tripura in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India, subject to the modifications which may be considered relevant for the purpose of meeting out the requirements to the Govt. of Tripura in exercise of powers conferred under proviso to Art. 309 of the Constitution of India, subject to the modifications which may be considered relevant for the purpose of meeting out the requirements to the Govt. employee of the State vide its notification dated 8th of August, 1978 extract of which is reproduced hereunder: For purpose of this Rule-54 (14) (a) (b): “(a) Continuous service means service rendered in a temporary or permanent capacity in a pensionable establishment and does not include:- (i) Period of suspension, if any. (ii) Period of service, if any, rendered before attaining the age of eighteen years. (b) Family in relation to a Government servant means:- Wife in the case of a male Government servant, or husband in the case of a female Government servant, provided the marriage took place before the retirement of the Government servant. A judicially separated wife or husband such, separation not being granted on the ground of the adultery provided the marriage took place before the retirement of the Government servant. Son who has not attained the age of eighteen years and unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of twenty-one years, including such son and daughter adopted legally before retirement but shall not include son or daughter born after retirement.” 15. The State Government vide memorandum dated 16th of August, 1999 has further inserted Clause-IV to Proviso-14(b) of Rule-54 of CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972 which is relevant for the present purpose reproduce ad-infra: “No. F.8(3)-FIN(G)/99 Government of Tripura, Finance Department Dated, Agartala, the 16th August, 1999 MEMORANDUM Subject:- Admissibility of family pension to such parents who are wholly dependent on the government servant (bachelor/unmarried as well as deceased leaving behind neither a widow nor a child) when he/she was alive inclusion thereof in the definition of family. The undersigned is directed to refer to the provision 14(b) of Rule-54 of C. C. S. (Pension) Rules, 1972 (as adopted in the State of Tripura) and to say that the following shall be inserted as item (iv) of proviso 14(b) of Rule-54 of C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972. Parents who are wholly dependent on the Government servants when he/she alive, shall be included in the definition of family in case where the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child. Parents who are wholly dependent on the Government servants when he/she alive, shall be included in the definition of family in case where the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child. Such parents will be eligible for family pension at the ordinary rate, i.e. 30% of the pay of the deceased employee. Such benefit shall also be admissible for the parents when the deceased government employee was Bachelor/unmarried. These orders shall come into force with effect from the 1st January, 1999. (S.N. Saha) Joint Secretary To the Govt. of Tripura.” 16. The word family has been defined u/Rule-3(e) of Rules, 1972, who are entitled and to whom family pension is admissible which covers the contributory family pension admissible under Rule -54 and includes non-contributory family pension admissible under Rule-55 of Rules, 1972. 17. Rule-54 of Rules, 1972 deals with the contributory family pension with which we are concerned and Govt. servants who died after completion of not less than 1 (one) year of qualifying service as contemplated under Rule-54 (2) (a) of the Rules, his/her family became entitled for contributory family pension and the term family of a Govt. servant as originally conceived under Rules, 1972 defined under Sub-Rule-14(b) of Rule-54, it remain confined to the wife and children of the Govt. Servant and the dependent parents remain unnoticed but it later revealed to the State Govt. looking to the family structure in the State of Tripura that the parents remain wholly dependent on the Govt. servant and on account of his/her untimely death came in financial distress deserves to be included in the definition of the term family for the purpose of family pension and accordingly, under its memorandum dated 16th of August, 1999 enlarged the definition of family by inserting Clause-IV to Provios-14(b) to Rule-54 of the Rules, 1972. 18. The meaning of the word ‘extended’ has been defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th Edition defined where the meaning of the word ‘extended’ has stated as under: Extended: a lengthening out of time previously fixed and not the arbitrary setting of a new date. Stretched, spread or drown. The definition of the word ‘extended’ given in Black’s Law Dictionary has been relied upon by the Apex Court in Provash Chandra Dalui and Another, 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 487. Stretched, spread or drown. The definition of the word ‘extended’ given in Black’s Law Dictionary has been relied upon by the Apex Court in Provash Chandra Dalui and Another, 1989 Supp. (1) SCC 487. The meaning of the word ‘extend’ in the Cambridge English Dictionary means “to add something in order to make it bigger or longer, to make something last longer and to stretch something out.” 19. Taking note of the word extended as referred to above, it clearly emerges that the definition of the term family as originally conceived under Rule-14(b) of Rules, 1972, the old parents who came in financial distress and wholly dependent on the Govt. servant when he/she was alive remain unnoticed and the State of Tripura taking note of the family and social structure of the local residents of the State, considers it appropriate to extend in substance to include the old parents by inserting Clause-IV to Sub-Rule-14(b) of Rule-54 who are wholly dependent on the Govt. servant while he/she was alive eligible for family pension under its notification dated 16th August, 1999 in disregard to the date of death of the Govt. employee effective from 01.01.1999 subject to the fulfillment of other conditions. 20. In the considered opinion of this Court the effective date i.e. 01.01.1999 under notification dated 16th August, 1999 is having nexus to hold the wholly dependent parents eligible for family pension, provided the dependent parents fulfill other conditions under Clause-IV to Rule-14(b) of Rule-54 of Rules, 1972 and any other interpretation as pleaded by the respondents will lead to discriminate amongst the wholly dependent parents on the deceased employee who died before or after 01.01.1999, which may be violative of u/Art. 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India. The State being a model employer it is expected to construe the provisions of a beneficial legislation in a way to extend the benefit to its employees instead of curtails it. 21. The reasons assigned by the respondents that the family pension is not entitled to the parents of the deceased Govt. employee who died before 01.01.1999, is not sustainable for the reasons that the definition of family in cases where the deceased Govt. servant had left behind neither the widow nor a child and such parents who are wholly dependent upon the Govt. employee who died before 01.01.1999, is not sustainable for the reasons that the definition of family in cases where the deceased Govt. servant had left behind neither the widow nor a child and such parents who are wholly dependent upon the Govt. servant came in financial distress became eligible for family pension on extension of a definition of term family of a deceased Govt. servant who was bachelor/unmarried in terms of memorandum dated 16.08.1999 disregard to the date of death of the Govt. servant but their entitlement remains from 01.01.1999. 22. So far the submission made by the respondents’ counsel regarding delay in filing of writ petition, the Apex Court in the judgment Union of India and Others vs. Tarsem Singh, (2008) 8 SCC 648 , in a case relating to a continuing wrong, relief can always be granted even if there is long delay in seeking remedy with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, but in cases where it affects the rights of the third parties or the issue relating to seniority or promotion, affecting rights of others delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. “7. To summarise, normally, a belated service related claim will be rejected on the ground of delay and laches (where remedy is sought by filing a writ petition) or limitation (where remedy is sought by an application to the Administrative Tribunal). One of the exceptions to the said rule is cases relating to a continuing wrong. Where a service related claim is based on a continuing wrong, relief can be granted even if there is a long delay in seeking remedy, with reference to the date on which the continuing wrong commenced, if such continuing wrong creates a continuing source of injury. But there is an exception to the exception. If the grievance is in respect of any order or administrative decision which related to or affected several others also, and if the re-opening of the issue would affect the settled rights of third parties, then the claim will not be entertained. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc. For example, if the issue relates to payment or refixation of pay or pension, relief may be granted in spite of delay as it does not affect the rights of third parties. But if the claim involved issues relating to seniority or promotion etc. affecting others, delay would render the claim stale and doctrine of laches/limitation will be applied. In so far as the consequential relief of recovery of arrears for a past period in concerned, the principles relating to recurring/ successive wrongs will apply. As a consequence, High Courts will restrict the consequential relief relating to arrears normally to a period of three years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition.” 23. In the instant case, the record reveals that the petitioner’s husband who died on 15th October, 2001 also knock the doors of the respondents for claiming family pension during his life time as dependent over the Govt. servant in terms of the notification dated 16th of August, 1999 and persuasion of her husband to claim family pension is born out from document (Annexure-7) dated 7th July, 2017 when S P. West Tripura, Agartala forwarded the application filed by the present petitioner for claiming family pension addressed to the Accountant General (A&E) Tripura, Agartala, has referred that “after his death her father came forward for claiming family pension etc. as legal heir” but no action was taken. 24. The petitioner who appears to be a illiterate lady who has put her thumb impression on all the papers was never guided on the contrary, it was the legal obligation on the respondents to consider the application of her husband and sanction the family pension to the widow and mother of the deceased, who being in financial distress after she has lost her husband and son, being the sole survivor which is very much reflected from the survival certificate placed on records having faith being left in lurch and no one came to her rescue, at this stage when the matter was referred on the later request was turned down by the respondents without due application of mind under order dated 6th of November, 2017 with a reason that parents of the Govt. servant are not entitled to the family pension since died before 01.01.1999 left with no remedy than to invoke jurisdiction of this Court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. servant are not entitled to the family pension since died before 01.01.1999 left with no remedy than to invoke jurisdiction of this Court u/Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 25. In the opinion of this Court, the memorandum dated 16.08.1999 has been misinterpreted by the respondents just to non-suit the claim of the widow for family pension to which she was otherwise entitled for under the law and the illiterate widow having no source of survival and being in financial distress it appears that when left all hopes to get justice from the administration and on rejection of her claim vide communication dated 6th November, 2017 without any delay approached this Court invoking inherent jurisdiction u/ Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the present claim of the petitioner cannot be said to be stale disentitling her claim of family pension to which she has prayed for from the date of her entitlement from 01.01.1999. 26. Although, the case relied upon of the Apex Court reported in (2008) 8 SCC 648 , the Apex Court has confined the relief of arrears for the period of 3 years prior to the date of filing of writ petition but it was the case where the Army personal himself who was invalidated out of Army service, in medical category, on 13.11.1983 approached the High Court for the first time in the year 1999 seeking direction for grant of disability pension after being invalidated out of Army services in medical category dated 13th of November, 1983. The Apex Court finally in the given facts and circumstances considers appropriate to confined the relief of arrears of 3 years prior to the date of filing of writ petition keeping the provision of law of limitation in consideration. 27. But in the instance case, widow may not be entitled for confinement of arrears for 3 (three) years for the reason that her son who was unmarried/bachelor died on 28th September, 1997 leaving behind the old dependent parents as the sole survivors as reflected from the survival certificate dated 29th of October, 1997, (Annexure-2). The petitioner’s husband & father of the deceased Govt. The petitioner’s husband & father of the deceased Govt. servant died at the age of 64 years, in the year 2001 and during his life time he indeed approached the authority for grant of family pension immediately after the memorandum dated 16th of August, 1999 came into force enlarging the definition of the term family including dependent parents of the Govt. servant for grant of family pension from 01.01.1999 and the letter dated 7th July, 2017 (Annexure-7) addressed by the S.P. West Tripura, Agartala to the Accountant General (A&E) is evident of the fact that after the death of the Govt. employee on 28th September, 1997, his father approached for claiming family pension as legal heirs, but he too passed away awaiting the course of proceedings and if the application was not taken note of by the respondents at last, the widow who from the records appears to be illiterate having no source of income and left in financial distress have approached on rejection of her claim for the reason which is arbitrary and in violation of Art. 14 & 21 of the Constitution of India cannot be held responsible and the delay in no manner can be attributed to her. 28. In the given facts and circumstances, she has made out a case for grant of arrears of family pension which became admissible to her in terms of the memorandum dated 16th of August, 1999 from 01.01.1999 and if this Court curtail the period and considered to grant family pension 3 years prior to the date of filing of the writ petition that in the opinion of this Court, will be a great injustice to the illiterate widow and that she is not supposed to suffer for letharginess on the part of the respondents for not taking action expeditiously in examining her claim for grant of family pension to which she was otherwise entitled for being the wholly dependent parent of the deceased Govt. servant from 01.01.1999 under notification dated 16.08.1999. 29. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner did not plead in the writ petition that they were wholly dependent on the Govt. servant which is one of the condition precedent for grant of family pension under the notification dated 16th of August, 1999 is of no substance for the reason that the Govt. 29. Counsel for the respondents further submitted that the petitioner did not plead in the writ petition that they were wholly dependent on the Govt. servant which is one of the condition precedent for grant of family pension under the notification dated 16th of August, 1999 is of no substance for the reason that the Govt. servant died on 28th September, 1997 and the survival certificate dated 29th of October, 1997 (Annexure-2) on record indicates the name of the parents of the deceased Govt. servant i.e. Abinash Ch. Das and Smt. Nirada Bala Das only as the survivors which indeed reflects that the survivor parents were fully dependent on the Govt. servant at the time of his death and who was none other than their son died untimely leaving behind them in financial distress. At the same time it is not the case of the respondents that there was any other source of livelihood to the parents which may disentitle them to claim family pension under memorandum dated 16.08.1999. 30. The judgment on which the respondents’ counsel paid reliance Col. B.J. Akkara (Retd.) vs. Government of India and Others, (2006) 11 SCC 709 , referred to pre and post cut-off date retirees on 01.01.1996, but in the present case the notification dated 16th August, 1999 is effective from 01.01.1999 and it is not the cut-off date on the contrary it is the date from which the parents, who are wholly dependent on the Govt. servant subject on fulfillment of the conditions stipulated became eligible for family pension from 01.01.1999 disregard to the date of death of the Govt. servant. 31. This Court is of the considered opinion that the denial of claim of the petitioner for grant of family pension on the premise that the family pension is not admissible to the wholly dependent parents of the deceased Govt. servant who died before 01.01.1999 under communication dated 6th of November, 2017, is not sustainable in law for the reason aforesaid and deserves to be set aside. 32. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed, the communication dated 6th of November, 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. servant who died before 01.01.1999 under communication dated 6th of November, 2017, is not sustainable in law for the reason aforesaid and deserves to be set aside. 32. Consequently, the writ petition stands allowed, the communication dated 6th of November, 2017 is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to release the family pension to the petitioner which is admissible to her in terms of the memorandum dated 16th of August, 1999 from the date it became applicable w.e.f. 01.01.1999 and arrears be computed and shall be paid to her within a period of 2(two) months failing which, she may be entitle to claim interest over the arrears @ 9% until actual payment. No cost.