JUDGMENT : 1. Heard learned counsels for the parties. 2. The petitioner, a retired government employee has approached this Court by way of this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking appropriate direction and issuance of appropriate writ directing respondents to incorporate the name of the petitioner's son viz. Mr. Asit J. Dave as person entitled to receive family pension after the demise of the petitioner on account of the son being suffering from congenital disabilities of speech and hearing in accordance with the provision of Rule 93 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules” for the sake of convenience and brevity). 3. The facts as mentioned by the petition in the memo of the petition deserve to be reproduced as under for appreciating the contention of the parties. “(1) The petitioner states and submits that petitioner had worked form the period 21.06.1956 to 30.09.1990 and thereafter retired from the post of Extension officer from the office of the respondent no.3 i.e. Assistant Director of Animal Husbandry, Integrated Poultry Form Unit, Pedok, Kuwavad road, Rajkot. The Form no. X dated 17.08.1990 from the office of the director of Pension and Provident Fund Office is annexed here to and marked as Annexure-C to this petition. (2) Petitioner state and submits that after the demise of his wife (Late Hansaben J. Dave) on dated 31.05.2010, petitioner had made application on dated 14.07.2010 to respondent no.3 to enter the name of his son Shri Asit Jaswantrai Dave, for the purpose of getting Life Time Pension, as such his son is completely deaf and dump since his birth and therefore, he is not capable to earn money and to do to any work for his survival. Petitioner also states that on event of petitioner's death there is no other person in the family of the petitioner to look after his son. Therefore, his son name is to be entered for the purpose of life time pension scheme as framed by the finance department in the government resolution and the Circular dt. 08.04.2009. The copy of death certificate of the petitioner's wife is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE-D to this petition. Petitioner states that thereafter the respondent no.3, replied petitioner vide, letter dated 23.07.2010, enclosing the letter/reply dt. 08.04.2009. The copy of death certificate of the petitioner's wife is annexed hereto as ANNEXURE-D to this petition. Petitioner states that thereafter the respondent no.3, replied petitioner vide, letter dated 23.07.2010, enclosing the letter/reply dt. 21.07.2010 of the district Treasurer office-Rajkot, stating that the application of the petitioner for entering the name of his son for life time pension cannot be considered as such there is no scheme of the Government for the deaf and dump person. The various applications/representations of the petitioner and reply of the respondents are annexed hereto as Annexure-E colly to this petition. (3) The petitioner submits that his son Shri Asit J. Dave is deaf and dump since his birth and for that certificate is also been issued by the Chairman and Medical Superintendent/CDMO/Head of Hospital, certifying that Asit J. Dave, is suffering with 100% Permanent hearing disablement as per the Audiometric report dt. 10.08.2009. The said Audiometric report and the school leaving certificate, certifying that Asit J. Dave is deaf and dump with 100% permanent disablement are Annexed hereto as Annexure-F colly to this petition.” 4. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the aforesaid denial to incorporate the petitioner's name into the PPO A/c. No.15948, the present petition is preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of the petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention to the provision of Rules, which has been setout in the reply affidavit at page no.41 to indicate that there exists a provision for incorporating the name of the sons and daughters of the pensioner into the pension account so that after the demise of the pensioner, the sons and daughters, who have been suffering from physical disability and who are unable to earn their livelihood may receive the family pension as provided thereunder. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited Court's attention to the Resolution of the State dated 6th July 1989 in respect of providing family pension to the dependent of the pensioner as mentioned thereunder. 7. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also invited Court's attention to the Resolution of the State dated 6th July 1989 in respect of providing family pension to the dependent of the pensioner as mentioned thereunder. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited Court's attention to the Government Resolution dated 6th October 1999 produced in the memo of the petition at page no.46 to indicate that the difficulties, which were faced on account of the demise of the pensioner in incorporating the name of the disabled son and daughter to receive the family pension, was realized and it was addressed by the State by providing to incorporate the names of such dependents during the life time of the pensioner and hence by way of the Resolution dated 6th October 1999, the State provided for incorporating the names of such eligible disabled dependents of the pensioner in to the pension account so that after the demise of pensioner, they may receive family pension without any hassles. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner's wife passed away in the year 2010 and hence, the petitioner requested the authorities to incorporate the petitioner's son's name into his pension account so that after his demise, the son may receive the family pension. The petitioner addressed a communication along with the requisite documents and papers, copies whereof are annexed to the petition on 14th July 2010 along with requisite form was also filled in indicating details required to be filled in by the pensioner. The said communication was required to be forwarded to the appropriate authority and accordingly the same was communicated to the authority along with the requisite recommendation as could be seen from the communication from the Deputy Director to the District Treasury Officer on 14th June 2011. The said communication appears to have been subjected to scrutiny by the concerned authority, who in turn appears to have consulted the Finance Department, which vide its letter dated 11th March 2011 opined that the son or daughter, who are deaf and dumb are not included into the list of beneficiary or dependents eligible to receive family pension after the demise of pensioner as they are not incapable of earing of their livelihood. Relying upon this communication, the concerned authority returned the papers back to the petitioner vide their communication dated 21st July 2010 produced at page no.25. Relying upon this communication, the concerned authority returned the papers back to the petitioner vide their communication dated 21st July 2010 produced at page no.25. The petitioner's counsel submitted that this unfortunate opinion is not inconsonance with the spirit and letter of Rule-93 whereunder the dependents, who are suffering from handicaps preventing them from earning their livelihood are made eligible to receive family pension after the demise of pensioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner invited Court's attention to the provision of The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as “the Disabilities Act” for the sake of convenience and brevity) and laid special emphasis upon the Section 2 and Clause no.2(i), which includes the definition of disability wherein the hearing impairment is mentioned as one of the disabilities. Learned counsel for the petitioner, thereafter, invited Court's attention to the definition of Clause-t of Section-2 of the Disabilities Act to indicate that “person with disability” means a person suffering from not less than 40% of any disability as certified by a medical authority. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Finance Department while issuing the communication of 11th March 2011 appears to have overlooked the provision of the Disabilities Act else it would not have been possible for State to reject the claim of the petitioner for incorporating his son's name in the pension account for making him eligible and entitle to receive family pension after the demise of the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner therefore, urged that the writ of mandamus or any appropriate writ be issued to the authority for incorporating the claim of the petitioner's son as dependent of the pensioner – petitioner to receive the family pension in the eventuality of petitioner's demise to sustain his life. 12. Learned AGP for the respondent-State invited Court's attention to the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that the stand of the State is clear qua such disability suffered by the dependent and hence, the present petition deserves to be dismissed. 13. Learned AGP for the respondent-State invited Court's attention to the provision of Rule3 indicating that if any question to the interpretation of this rule arise, then the State Government in Finance Department is competent and entitle to give interpretation, which shall be treated as final. 13. Learned AGP for the respondent-State invited Court's attention to the provision of Rule3 indicating that if any question to the interpretation of this rule arise, then the State Government in Finance Department is competent and entitle to give interpretation, which shall be treated as final. The State being the author of the Rules, the stand and interpretation incorporated in the letter dated 11th March 2011 issued by the under Secretary, Finance Department is covered by the said Rule3 and Court therefore, may accept the same else it would amount to rewrite the entire clause. 14. The Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the provision. The relevant provision of Rule93 and Rule3 of the Rules deserves to be setout hereunder for ready reference. “93. Payment of Family Pension to mentally retarded, blind etc. 14. The Court has heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the provision. The relevant provision of Rule93 and Rule3 of the Rules deserves to be setout hereunder for ready reference. “93. Payment of Family Pension to mentally retarded, blind etc. children : Without prejudice to the provisions contained in rule91, if the son or daughter of a Governments employee born before or after retirement, from the marriage which took place before or after his retirement is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or is physically crippled or disabled or is blind so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of twenty-five years the family pension shall be payable to such son or daughter for life subject to the following conditions, namely : (1) the handicap is of such a nature as to prevent him or her from earning his or her livelihood and the same shall be evidenced by a certificate obtained from a Medical Officer not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon or Superintendent of Civil Hospital setting out, as far as possible, the exact mental or physical condition of the child; (i) if such son or daughter is one among two or more children of the Government employee, the family pension shall be initially payable to the children in the order set out in sub-rule (9) of rule-91, until the last minor child attains the age of twenty-five and thereafter the Family Pension shall be resumed in favour of the son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind or who is physically crippled or disabled or blind and shall be payable to him/her for life; (ii) if there are more than one such son or daughter suffering from disorder or disability of mind or who are physically crippled or disabled or blind the family pension shall be paid in the following order namely : (a) firstly to the son, and if there are more than one son, the younger of them will get the family pension only after the lifetime of the elder; (b) secondly, to the daughter, and if there are more than one daughter, the younger of them will get the Family Pension only after the life time of the elder; (iii) the family pension shall be paid to such son or daughter through the guardian as if he or she were a minor; (iv) before allowing the Family Pension for life to any such son or daughter, the sanctioning authority shall satisfy itself that the person receiving the Family Pension as guardian of such son or daughter shall produce every three years a certificate from a Medical Officer not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon/Superintendent of Civil Hospital to the effect that he or she continues to suffer from disorder or disability of mind or continue to be physically crippled or disabled. (v) Where the names of eligible children have not been mentioned in the Pension Payment Order and the child is post retiral one or post retiral manifestation of disability of the child, the pensioner, if so he/she so desires can furnish the list of eligible children to the pension sanctioning authority interalia indicating whether any child is handicapped or not. Receipt of this may be acknowledged by the pension sanctioning authority mentioning the details of eligible children taken on record. This acknowledgement may be preserved by members of the family of the pensioner for production at the time of claim for family pension in their own turn to the pension sanctioning authority. In case of mentally retarded children or minor children who would draw pension through guardian, the responsibility of producing this acknowledgement will, however, not be a precondition to the processing of claims for family pension. Explanation : (a) Disability or blindness which manifests itself before the retirement or after the death of the Government employee while in service but before the son/daughter attained the age of twenty-five years shall be taken into account for the purpose of grant of Family Pension under this sub-rule. (b) A son or daughter shall become ineligible for Family Pension under this sub-rule from the date he or she gets married. (c) The Family Pension payable to such a son or daughter shall be stopped if he or she starts earning his/her livelihood. (d) In such cases it shall be the duty of the guardian to furnish a certificate to the Treasury or Bank, as the case may be, every month that (i) he or she has not started earning his/her livelihood, and (ii) he or she has not yet married. “(e) Physically handicapped divorced daughter would be eligible to receive family pension”. (2) they are already not in receipt of any pension or are eligible therefor, under any other rules of any other State Government or the Central Government and/or a public sector undertaking or Autonomous body under the State Government or Central Government.” “Rule 3 : Right to interpret If any question relating to the interpretation of these rules arises, it shall be referred to the State Government in Finance Department whose decision thereon shall be final.” 15. The close reading of Rule93 would leave no manner of doubt that the same is benevolent provision providing for those dependents of the pensioner, who suffers on account of their disability and who are unable to earn their livelihood. Apart therefrom, no other interpretation is emanating from the said rules so as to exclude any category of disablement from its purview. The said rule in other words excludes the disabled dependent, who suffers from disability of deafness or speech impairment which rendered to earn his livelihood on account thereof. What is important throughout the provision of Rule93 is the dependent's inability to earn his livelihood on account of the disability, irrespective of the nature of disability. Any attempt to define or categorized and exclude such categories which are not provided in Rule93 would amount to rather rewrite the rule and would not be saved by the saving clause of Rule3 as the same cannot be said to be an interpretation exercised so as to interpret any clause in question. The communication of 11th March 2011 issued from the Finance Department of the State in my view is nothing but an improvement and/or addition to the rule, which could not have been possibly attempted as it runs counter to the letter and spirit of the Rule93 as it stands today in the book. 16. It would not be out of place to mention the object and reason of the Disabilities Act, which unequivocally pronounce commitment of the State to provide for persons as their duty which State has accepted throughout. The object and reason of the Disabilities Act are reproduced hereinbelow. “ STATEMENT OF OBJECTS AND REASONS The meeting to launch the Asian and Pacific Decade of the Disabled Persons 1993-2002 convened by the Economic and Social Commission for Asian and Pacific Region, held at Beijing on 1st to 5th December, 1992 adopted the Proclamation on the Full Participation and Equality of People with Disabilities in the Asia and the Pacific region. India is a signatory to the said proclamation and it is necessary to enact a suitable legislation to provide for the following : (i) to spell out the responsibility of the State towards the prevention of disabilities, protection of rights, provision of medical care, education, training, employment and rehabilitation of persons with disabilities; (ii) to create barrier free environment for persons with disabilities; (iii) to remove any discrimination against persons with disabilities in the sharing of development benefits, visavis nondisabled persons; (iv) to counteract any situation of the abuse and the exploitation of persons with disabilities; (v) to lay down a strategy for comprehensive development of programmes and services and equalisation of opportunities for persons with disabilities; and (vi) to make special provision of the integration of persons with disabilities into the social mainstream. 2. Accordingly, it is proposed to provide inter-alia for the construction of Coordination Committees and Executive Committees at the Central and State levels to carry out the various functions assigned to them. Within the limits of their economic capacity and development the appropriate Governments and the local authorities will have to undertake various measures for the prevention and early detection of disabilities, creation of barrier-free environment, provision for rehabilitation services, etc. The Bill also provides for education, employment and vocational training, reservation in identified posts, research and manpower development, establishment of homes for persons with severe disabilities, etc. For effective implementation of the provision of the Bill, appointment of the Chief Commissioner for persons with disabilities at the Central level and Commissioners for persons with disabilities at the State level clothed with powers to monitor the funds disbursed by the Central and State Governments and also to take steps to safeguard the rights of the persons with disabilities is also envisaged.” 17. The statement and object of the Disabilities Act propounds the unflinching commitment of the State to support the disabled and to enjoins upon all the authorities to strive for achieving the object mentioned thereunder. The Rule93 can be said to be being inspired by those objects and reasons and hence, the same cannot be read down in any manner so as to exclude A category or B category or a category as sought to be excluded by the communication dated 11th March 2011. The Rule93 can be said to be being inspired by those objects and reasons and hence, the same cannot be read down in any manner so as to exclude A category or B category or a category as sought to be excluded by the communication dated 11th March 2011. In my view, if such an exercise is undertaken as it is done in the present case, the same would not only run counter to the provision of Rule93, but also to the provision of Disabilities Act and would give a serious blow to the State commitment, which in my view cannot be countenanced as the same cannot be an intention of the State. The Court is inclined to reiterate at the cost of repetition that the sole test for incorporating the name of the disabled dependent of the pensioner being his or her inability to earn his/her livelihood on account of disability suffered once that is established by production of appropriate medical certificate, then the State authorities are under obligation to provide the family pension to the pensioners and such dependents. 16. The Court, therefore, is of the view that the petition is required to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated 14th July 2010 and incorporate the name of the petitioner's son in the pension account PPO No.15948 so that making him entitle to receive the family pension in accordance with law. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent. However, there shall be no order as to costs.