JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Husband of the petitioner joined the service of respondents as Additional District & Sessions Judge w.e.f. 01.03.1990. After rendering 4 years 7 months and 11 days of service, he died in harness on 11.10.1994 while serving as District & Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. 2. Governor of Himachal Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Officers (pay allowances and conditions of services) 2003, issued a Notification dated 29.08.2008 Annexure P-1, vide which allowances/ facilities and benefits mentioned therein were extended to Judicial Officers w.e.f. 01.11.1999. 3. Item-16 of the said Notification dealt with retiral benefits and the same provided as under:- "(i) The Revised Pension of the Retired Judicial Officers shall be 50% of the pay of the post held as revised from time to time, at the time of retirement. (ii) The condition of the qualifying service of 33 years for earning full pension will not be applicable to the Judicial Officers. (iii) The Judicial Officers will not be governed by the C.P.F. Rules. (iv) All the retired Judicial Officers shall be given a fixed monthly medical allowance of Rs.100/-. (v) All the medical facilities that have been recommended to serving Judicial Officers with regard to treatment and reimbursement of expenditure etc., shall be applicable to retired Judicial Officers. (vi) The medical reimbursement bills submitted by the retired Judicial Officers shall be processed and paid by the office of the Principal District Judge of the place where the retiree has opted to settle. (vii) The retired Judicial Officer retiring shall be entitled for reimbursement of domestic help @ Rs.1250/- P.M. w.e.f. 1,11.99. A retired Judicial Officers shall be entitled for the reimbursement only in case such Judicial Officer has served at least for five years". 4. This was followed by Notification dated 17.03.2012 (Annexure P-12) which reads as under:- "In compliance of orders dated 26.07.2010 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in I.A. No.244 in Writ Petition (C) No.1022/1989 titled All India Judges Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to enhance/ grant the following allowances to the retired Judicial Officers and family pensioners with immediate effect:- 1. Domestic Help Allowance to retired Judicial Officers is enhanced from Rs.1250/- per month to Rs.2,500/- per month. 2. Vs. Union of India & Ors, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to enhance/ grant the following allowances to the retired Judicial Officers and family pensioners with immediate effect:- 1. Domestic Help Allowance to retired Judicial Officers is enhanced from Rs.1250/- per month to Rs.2,500/- per month. 2. Domestic Help Allowance is granted to family pensioners @ Rs.1000/- per month". 5. Vide Annexure P-3, Registrar General of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh forwarded a copy of Notification, dated 03.10.2012, to the petitioner. Said Notification which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-4, provided as under:- "'NOTIFICATION' In continuation of this department notification of even number dated 17th March, 2012, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to grant the domestic help allowance to retired Judicial Officers and family pensioners of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.2006". 6. On receipt of the communication from the Registrar of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, petitioner made a representation to respondent No.4 dated 24.11.2012 (Annexure P-5), in which it was mentioned that in terms of the Notifications dated 17.03.2012 and 03.10.2012, petitioner be released Domestic Help Allowance w.e.f. 01.01.2006, as she was a family pensioner being wife of deceased Shri R.S. Negi, who died while serving in the cadre of District/ Additional District Judges. 7. Request of petitioner has been rejected, as is borne out from Annexure P-7 (communication dated 28.03.2013) and Annexure P-8 (communication dated 18.04.2013), on the ground that petitioner was not entitled for Domestic Help Allowance as per Item No.16 (vii) of the Himachal Pradesh Government Notification dated 29.08.2008, as her husband had not served for a period of 5 years and the condition of 5 years service for being eligible for Domestic Help Allowance was also applicable to the family pensioners. 8. Subsequent request made by petitioner for consideration of the grant of Domestic Help Allowance to her was also rejected by respondents/ State, vide Annexure P-17 i.e. communication dated 29.10.2016, vide which the Government reiterated its earlier decision conveyed vide Department Letter dated 28.03.2013 (Annexure P-7). 9. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present Petition inter alia, praying for quashing of Annexure P-7 (communication dated 28.03.2013), as also Annexure P-16 (communication dated 29.10.2016), with the prayer that respondents be directed to grant Domestic Help Allowance to her in terms of Notifications dated 17.03.2012 and 03.10.2012, w.e.f. 01.01.2006 at the rate of 12%, for delayed payment. 10. 9. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present Petition inter alia, praying for quashing of Annexure P-7 (communication dated 28.03.2013), as also Annexure P-16 (communication dated 29.10.2016), with the prayer that respondents be directed to grant Domestic Help Allowance to her in terms of Notifications dated 17.03.2012 and 03.10.2012, w.e.f. 01.01.2006 at the rate of 12%, for delayed payment. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 11. A perusal of the reply filed to the petition by respondents No.1 to 3/ State, demonstrates that the reason as to why Domestic Help Allowance has been declined to the petitioner, is that in terms of Notification dated 29.08.2008, only those Judicial Officers are eligible for grant of Domestic Help Allowance, who had served for at lease 5 years and this includes "Judicial Officers whether expired or alive". 12. Vide notification dated 29.08.2008 (Annexure P-1), entitlement for reimbursement of domestic help was extended to retired Judicial Officers, provided he had served at least for five years. 13. Vide Notification dated 03.10.2012 (Annexure P-4), grant of Domestic Help Allowance was extended both to the retired Judicial Officers as also family pensioners of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.2006. 14. It is not in dispute that petitioner is a family pensioner of Himachal Pradesh in her capacity as the wife of deceased Judicial Officer, who died in harness. 15. The moot issue, which this Court has to decide is, as to whether the eligibility of minimum 5 years service for being entitled for Domestic Help Allowance in the case of a family pensioner of a deceased Judicial Officer meets the touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution or not?. 16. When the Government issued Notification dated 29.08.2008, it in its prudence decided that entitlement for reimbursement of domestic help to a retired Judicial Officer shall be extended only in case such Judicial Officer had served for at least 5 years. One cannot find any fault with the decision so taken by the Government, because the Government decided and rightly so that if a Judicial Officer has not served for 5 years, then he shall not be entitled for reimbursement of domestic help. 17. This Court can take Judicial note of the fact that maximum age for being recruited as a Judicial Officer, leaves more five years for an appointed Judicial Officer to serve. 17. This Court can take Judicial note of the fact that maximum age for being recruited as a Judicial Officer, leaves more five years for an appointed Judicial Officer to serve. Meaning thereby that only those Judicial Officers would be having a term of less than 5 years, who voluntarily give up the job. 18. In service jurisprudence, once a person is appointed as a regular employee against a post then his services are governed by the Rules so framed by employer in this regard. There is an age of superannuation. Once employee attains the age of superannuation, he retires from service. However, before attaining the age of superannuation also, employee can voluntarily give up the service either by tendering his resignation or by seeking voluntarily retirement, in case employee fulfills the criteria laid down by employer for voluntarily retirement. In all probabilities, it is in the backdrop of what has been discussed above, that the Government in its wisdom while issuing Notification dated 29.08.2008 Annexure P-1, decided that a retired Judicial Officer shall be entitled for reimbursement of domestic help only if he has served for at least 5 years. 19. Now, incidently, family pensioners were not included in Notification dated 29.08.2008, as far as grant of retiral benefits are concerned. Family pensioners were included subsequently vide Notification dated 17.03.2012, in compliance to the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.07.2010 in I.A. No.244 in Writ Petition (c) No.1022/1989, titled All India Judges Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 20. As mentioned earlier, vide Notification dated 03.10.2012, the Government granted Domestic Help Allowance to retired Judicial Officers and family pensioners of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.2006. 21. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that husband of the petitioner died before completing 5 years of service as Additional/ District & Sessions Judge. He had rendered 4 years 7 months and 11 days of service as on the date when he died. 22. During the course of arguments, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, clearly and categorically stated that had the late husband of petitioner completed 5 years service as on the date of his death, then petitioner would have been entitled for Domestic Help Allowance in her capacity as family pensioner. 23. 22. During the course of arguments, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, clearly and categorically stated that had the late husband of petitioner completed 5 years service as on the date of his death, then petitioner would have been entitled for Domestic Help Allowance in her capacity as family pensioner. 23. In my considered view, in the peculiar facts of the case where husband of the petitioner died 5 months short from completion of 5 years of service, denial of benefit of Domestic Help Allowance to her on the analogy of mandatory completion of 5 years of service by a retired Judicial Officer to be eligible to get said benefit is highly arbitrary. By no stretch of imagination, an incumbent, who voluntarily decides to resign from the job before completion of 5 years of service, can be compared to an incumbent, who dies in harness before completion of 5 years of service. The decision of an employee to resign from services before completion of 5 years, is a voluntary act of an employee. However, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said (except in a case of suicide) that in case an employee dies within five years of his joining the service, the same is also a voluntary act. 24. By no stretch of imagination, the doctrine of election can be associated with death except may be in those rare cases where a person chooses to take his life. In this case, husband of the petitioner died a natural death. Therefore, simply because as on the date of his death, he had not completed five years of service, the same cannot be a reason to deny his widow who is a family pensioner, benefit of Notification dated 17.03.2012 Annexure P-2 and Notification dated 03.10.2012 Annexure P-4. Denial of the said benefit by the State on account of reasons mentioned in communication dated 28.03.2013 Annexure P-7 and communication dated 29.10.2016 Annexure P-16, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 25. Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a classification is sustainable in law, provided the classification is based on intelligible differentia and it has some nexus with the object to be achieved. 25. Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a classification is sustainable in law, provided the classification is based on intelligible differentia and it has some nexus with the object to be achieved. In the case of former Judicial Officers, the classification made between those officers, who have served for less than five years as compared to those who have served for more than five years, for the grant of Domestic Help Allowance, can be said to be a valid classification, as there is an intelligible differentia between two categories based upon the length of service and nexus of the said classification with the object to be achieved is that only those former Judicial Officers are entitled for grant of Domestic Help Allowance, who have served at least as such for five years. Thus, grant of this benefit is an impetus to a Judicial Officer, who has served for more than five years as compared to one who has not done so. However, this classification cannot be imported while considering family pensioners for grant of Domestic Help Allowance of a deceased employee, because death is one of the biggest uncertainty of life and it cannot be said that a Judicial Officer, who unfortunately dies before completion of five years of service (may be except in a case of suicide) elected to die. 26. In view of the discussion held hereinabove, this petition is allowed. Notification dated 17.03.2012 Annexure P-2 and Notification dated 03.10.2012 Annexure P-4 are quashed and set aside being arbitrary and being violative of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is held entitled for grant of Domestic Help Allowance w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and decision of the respondents/ State, denying the same to her on the ground of her husband not having completed 5 years of service as a Judicial Officer as on the date of his death is held to be arbitrary and bad, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Respondents are directed forthwith to commence paying to the petitioner, Domestic Help Allowance, in her capacity as a family pensioner. Respondents are directed forthwith to commence paying to the petitioner, Domestic Help Allowance, in her capacity as a family pensioner. As far as arrears are concerned, keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, it is directed that in case arrears of Domestic Help Allowance w.e.f. 01.01.2006 till the month of August, 2019, are paid by the respondents to the petitioner on or before 30.11.2019, then no interest shall be payable on the same. However, in case arrears are not paid before 30.11.2019, then simple interest at the rate of 6% shall be payable on the arrears as from the date of this judgment. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of. JUDGMENT : Ajay Mohan Goel, J. Husband of the petitioner joined the service of respondents as Additional District & Sessions Judge w.e.f. 01.03.1990. After rendering 4 years 7 months and 11 days of service, he died in harness on 11.10.1994 while serving as District & Sessions Judge, Solan, District Solan, H.P. 2. Governor of Himachal Pradesh in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 read with Section 4 of the Himachal Pradesh Judicial Officers (pay allowances and conditions of services) 2003, issued a Notification dated 29.08.2008 Annexure P-1, vide which allowances/ facilities and benefits mentioned therein were extended to Judicial Officers w.e.f. 01.11.1999. 3. Item-16 of the said Notification dealt with retiral benefits and the same provided as under:- "(i) The Revised Pension of the Retired Judicial Officers shall be 50% of the pay of the post held as revised from time to time, at the time of retirement. (ii) The condition of the qualifying service of 33 years for earning full pension will not be applicable to the Judicial Officers. (iii) The Judicial Officers will not be governed by the C.P.F. Rules. (iv) All the retired Judicial Officers shall be given a fixed monthly medical allowance of Rs.100/-. (v) All the medical facilities that have been recommended to serving Judicial Officers with regard to treatment and reimbursement of expenditure etc., shall be applicable to retired Judicial Officers. (vi) The medical reimbursement bills submitted by the retired Judicial Officers shall be processed and paid by the office of the Principal District Judge of the place where the retiree has opted to settle. (vi) The medical reimbursement bills submitted by the retired Judicial Officers shall be processed and paid by the office of the Principal District Judge of the place where the retiree has opted to settle. (vii) The retired Judicial Officer retiring shall be entitled for reimbursement of domestic help @ Rs.1250/- P.M. w.e.f. 1,11.99. A retired Judicial Officers shall be entitled for the reimbursement only in case such Judicial Officer has served at least for five years". 4. This was followed by Notification dated 17.03.2012 (Annexure P-12) which reads as under:- "In compliance of orders dated 26.07.2010 of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in I.A. No.244 in Writ Petition (C) No.1022/1989 titled All India Judges Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to enhance/ grant the following allowances to the retired Judicial Officers and family pensioners with immediate effect:- 1. Domestic Help Allowance to retired Judicial Officers is enhanced from Rs.1250/- per month to Rs.2,500/- per month. 2. Domestic Help Allowance is granted to family pensioners @ Rs.1000/- per month". 5. Vide Annexure P-3, Registrar General of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh forwarded a copy of Notification, dated 03.10.2012, to the petitioner. Said Notification which is appended with the petition as Annexure P-4, provided as under:- "'NOTIFICATION' In continuation of this department notification of even number dated 17th March, 2012, the Governor of Himachal Pradesh is pleased to grant the domestic help allowance to retired Judicial Officers and family pensioners of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.2006". 6. On receipt of the communication from the Registrar of the High Court of Himachal Pradesh, petitioner made a representation to respondent No.4 dated 24.11.2012 (Annexure P-5), in which it was mentioned that in terms of the Notifications dated 17.03.2012 and 03.10.2012, petitioner be released Domestic Help Allowance w.e.f. 01.01.2006, as she was a family pensioner being wife of deceased Shri R.S. Negi, who died while serving in the cadre of District/ Additional District Judges. 7. 7. Request of petitioner has been rejected, as is borne out from Annexure P-7 (communication dated 28.03.2013) and Annexure P-8 (communication dated 18.04.2013), on the ground that petitioner was not entitled for Domestic Help Allowance as per Item No.16 (vii) of the Himachal Pradesh Government Notification dated 29.08.2008, as her husband had not served for a period of 5 years and the condition of 5 years service for being eligible for Domestic Help Allowance was also applicable to the family pensioners. 8. Subsequent request made by petitioner for consideration of the grant of Domestic Help Allowance to her was also rejected by respondents/ State, vide Annexure P-17 i.e. communication dated 29.10.2016, vide which the Government reiterated its earlier decision conveyed vide Department Letter dated 28.03.2013 (Annexure P-7). 9. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner has filed the present Petition inter alia, praying for quashing of Annexure P-7 (communication dated 28.03.2013), as also Annexure P-16 (communication dated 29.10.2016), with the prayer that respondents be directed to grant Domestic Help Allowance to her in terms of Notifications dated 17.03.2012 and 03.10.2012, w.e.f. 01.01.2006 at the rate of 12%, for delayed payment. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record. 11. A perusal of the reply filed to the petition by respondents No.1 to 3/ State, demonstrates that the reason as to why Domestic Help Allowance has been declined to the petitioner, is that in terms of Notification dated 29.08.2008, only those Judicial Officers are eligible for grant of Domestic Help Allowance, who had served for at lease 5 years and this includes "Judicial Officers whether expired or alive". 12. Vide notification dated 29.08.2008 (Annexure P-1), entitlement for reimbursement of domestic help was extended to retired Judicial Officers, provided he had served at least for five years. 13. Vide Notification dated 03.10.2012 (Annexure P-4), grant of Domestic Help Allowance was extended both to the retired Judicial Officers as also family pensioners of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.2006. 14. It is not in dispute that petitioner is a family pensioner of Himachal Pradesh in her capacity as the wife of deceased Judicial Officer, who died in harness. 15. 13. Vide Notification dated 03.10.2012 (Annexure P-4), grant of Domestic Help Allowance was extended both to the retired Judicial Officers as also family pensioners of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.2006. 14. It is not in dispute that petitioner is a family pensioner of Himachal Pradesh in her capacity as the wife of deceased Judicial Officer, who died in harness. 15. The moot issue, which this Court has to decide is, as to whether the eligibility of minimum 5 years service for being entitled for Domestic Help Allowance in the case of a family pensioner of a deceased Judicial Officer meets the touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution or not?. 16. When the Government issued Notification dated 29.08.2008, it in its prudence decided that entitlement for reimbursement of domestic help to a retired Judicial Officer shall be extended only in case such Judicial Officer had served for at least 5 years. One cannot find any fault with the decision so taken by the Government, because the Government decided and rightly so that if a Judicial Officer has not served for 5 years, then he shall not be entitled for reimbursement of domestic help. 17. This Court can take Judicial note of the fact that maximum age for being recruited as a Judicial Officer, leaves more five years for an appointed Judicial Officer to serve. Meaning thereby that only those Judicial Officers would be having a term of less than 5 years, who voluntarily give up the job. 18. In service jurisprudence, once a person is appointed as a regular employee against a post then his services are governed by the Rules so framed by employer in this regard. There is an age of superannuation. Once employee attains the age of superannuation, he retires from service. However, before attaining the age of superannuation also, employee can voluntarily give up the service either by tendering his resignation or by seeking voluntarily retirement, in case employee fulfills the criteria laid down by employer for voluntarily retirement. In all probabilities, it is in the backdrop of what has been discussed above, that the Government in its wisdom while issuing Notification dated 29.08.2008 Annexure P-1, decided that a retired Judicial Officer shall be entitled for reimbursement of domestic help only if he has served for at least 5 years. 19. In all probabilities, it is in the backdrop of what has been discussed above, that the Government in its wisdom while issuing Notification dated 29.08.2008 Annexure P-1, decided that a retired Judicial Officer shall be entitled for reimbursement of domestic help only if he has served for at least 5 years. 19. Now, incidently, family pensioners were not included in Notification dated 29.08.2008, as far as grant of retiral benefits are concerned. Family pensioners were included subsequently vide Notification dated 17.03.2012, in compliance to the orders of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 26.07.2010 in I.A. No.244 in Writ Petition (c) No.1022/1989, titled All India Judges Association & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. 20. As mentioned earlier, vide Notification dated 03.10.2012, the Government granted Domestic Help Allowance to retired Judicial Officers and family pensioners of Himachal Pradesh w.e.f. 01.01.2006. 21. In the present case, it is an admitted fact that husband of the petitioner died before completing 5 years of service as Additional/ District & Sessions Judge. He had rendered 4 years 7 months and 11 days of service as on the date when he died. 22. During the course of arguments, learned Additional Advocate General, on instructions, clearly and categorically stated that had the late husband of petitioner completed 5 years service as on the date of his death, then petitioner would have been entitled for Domestic Help Allowance in her capacity as family pensioner. 23. In my considered view, in the peculiar facts of the case where husband of the petitioner died 5 months short from completion of 5 years of service, denial of benefit of Domestic Help Allowance to her on the analogy of mandatory completion of 5 years of service by a retired Judicial Officer to be eligible to get said benefit is highly arbitrary. By no stretch of imagination, an incumbent, who voluntarily decides to resign from the job before completion of 5 years of service, can be compared to an incumbent, who dies in harness before completion of 5 years of service. The decision of an employee to resign from services before completion of 5 years, is a voluntary act of an employee. However, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said (except in a case of suicide) that in case an employee dies within five years of his joining the service, the same is also a voluntary act. 24. The decision of an employee to resign from services before completion of 5 years, is a voluntary act of an employee. However, by no stretch of imagination, it can be said (except in a case of suicide) that in case an employee dies within five years of his joining the service, the same is also a voluntary act. 24. By no stretch of imagination, the doctrine of election can be associated with death except may be in those rare cases where a person chooses to take his life. In this case, husband of the petitioner died a natural death. Therefore, simply because as on the date of his death, he had not completed five years of service, the same cannot be a reason to deny his widow who is a family pensioner, benefit of Notification dated 17.03.2012 Annexure P-2 and Notification dated 03.10.2012 Annexure P-4. Denial of the said benefit by the State on account of reasons mentioned in communication dated 28.03.2013 Annexure P-7 and communication dated 29.10.2016 Annexure P-16, is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 25. Under Article 14 of the Constitution of India, a classification is sustainable in law, provided the classification is based on intelligible differentia and it has some nexus with the object to be achieved. In the case of former Judicial Officers, the classification made between those officers, who have served for less than five years as compared to those who have served for more than five years, for the grant of Domestic Help Allowance, can be said to be a valid classification, as there is an intelligible differentia between two categories based upon the length of service and nexus of the said classification with the object to be achieved is that only those former Judicial Officers are entitled for grant of Domestic Help Allowance, who have served at least as such for five years. Thus, grant of this benefit is an impetus to a Judicial Officer, who has served for more than five years as compared to one who has not done so. Thus, grant of this benefit is an impetus to a Judicial Officer, who has served for more than five years as compared to one who has not done so. However, this classification cannot be imported while considering family pensioners for grant of Domestic Help Allowance of a deceased employee, because death is one of the biggest uncertainty of life and it cannot be said that a Judicial Officer, who unfortunately dies before completion of five years of service (may be except in a case of suicide) elected to die. 26. In view of the discussion held hereinabove, this petition is allowed. Notification dated 17.03.2012 Annexure P-2 and Notification dated 03.10.2012 Annexure P-4 are quashed and set aside being arbitrary and being violative of provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Petitioner is held entitled for grant of Domestic Help Allowance w.e.f. 01.01.2006 and decision of the respondents/ State, denying the same to her on the ground of her husband not having completed 5 years of service as a Judicial Officer as on the date of his death is held to be arbitrary and bad, being violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Respondents are directed forthwith to commence paying to the petitioner, Domestic Help Allowance, in her capacity as a family pensioner. As far as arrears are concerned, keeping in view the peculiar facts of the case, it is directed that in case arrears of Domestic Help Allowance w.e.f. 01.01.2006 till the month of August, 2019, are paid by the respondents to the petitioner on or before 30.11.2019, then no interest shall be payable on the same. However, in case arrears are not paid before 30.11.2019, then simple interest at the rate of 6% shall be payable on the arrears as from the date of this judgment. Petition stands disposed of in above terms. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.