ORDER : Heard Mr. Sanjay Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ms. Suchitra Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent-JSEB and Mr. Ansuman Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent-BSEB. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for quashing order dated 08.08.2009 whereby representation of the petitioner for family pension has been dismissed; and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to provide family pension. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the mother of the petitioner was in government service, who died in harness. In terms of the Pension Rules, the dependent of the government employee is entitled for family pension up-to the age of 21 years. Mr. Prasad, further submits that in view of Annexure 2, which is a certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, it is clear that the petitioner is having disability of 75 %. He further submits that in the Pension Adalat, held by the respondent-Board, there were certain observations with regard to petitioner and it was observed that appropriate order may be passed by the concerned authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner earlier approached this Court by way of filing W.P (S) No. 3368 of 2008, which was disposed of vide order dated 06.02.2009 with a direction to respondent-General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer, JSEB to decide the representation of the petitioner by passing reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. Pursuant thereto, the petitioner submitted representation, which was rejected vide order dated 08.08.2009, which is impugned in this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer is not sustainable in the eye of law, as the said authority on its own finding came to the conclusion that the petitioner is having the problem of hearing and speech and in spite of that he has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that due to such handicap the petitioner is not prevented from appointment/livelihood. Mr. Prasad, further submits that it is evident from Annexure 2 that the petitioner is having 75 % of disability on point of hearing and speech and as such the impugned order which has also taken cognizance of the fact that the petitioner is suffering from that disability is fit to be quashed and the petitioner is entitled for the family pension. He further draws attention of the Court to notification dated 03.09.1984 of the Finance Department, in particular Clause 2(i) and (iv), which is quoted herein below:' “(I).If such son or daughter is one among two or more children of the deceased Government servant, the family pension shall be initially payable to the minor children in the order set out in sub-clause (iii) of para (6) of this rule until the last minor child attains the age of 18 or 21, as the case may be, 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 and shall be payable to him/her for life; (ii).xxx xxx xxx (iii).xxx xxx xxx (iv).before allowing the family pension for life to any such son or daughter, the sanctioning authority shall satisfy that 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 Civil Surgeon setting out, as far as possible, the exact mental or physical condition of the child;” 4. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner referred to the decision rendered in the case of Deaf Employees Welfare Association and Anr. Vs. Union of India & Ors as reported in (2014) 3 SCC 173 , in particular, paragraph 26 and 28, which are quoted herein below: “26. The Disabilities Act deals with a well-defined class i.e. persons with “disabilities” mentioned in Section 2(i). The nature of disability may differ from person to person included in Section 2(i), but all such persons have been categorised as a group of “persons with disabilities” under Section 2(i) read with Section 2(t) of the Act. In our view, the differentia sought to be canvassed by the Ministry of Finance has no rational relation to the object sought to be achieved by the Disabilities Act, which envisages to give equal opportunities, protection and rights to the “persons with disabilities”. Equality of law and equal protection of law be afforded to all the “persons with disabilities” while participating in governmental functions. Transport allowance is given to government employees since many of the government employees may not be residing in and around their places of work. Equality of law and equal protection of law be afforded to all the “persons with disabilities” while participating in governmental functions. Transport allowance is given to government employees since many of the government employees may not be residing in and around their places of work. Sometimes, they have to commute long distances to and fro. There has been an unprecedented increase in the commutation time between the residence and place of work which affects the work environment in offices adversely as the employee spend much of their energy in commuting and, in the case of persons with disabilities, the situation is more grave. 28. Deaf and dumb persons have an inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected is the obligation on the State. Human dignity of a deaf and dumb person is harmed when he is being marginalised, ignored or devalued on the ground that the disability that he suffers is less than a visually impaired person which, in our view, clearly violates Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Comparison of disabilities among “persons of disabilities”, without any rational basis, is clearly violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In our view, the recommendation made by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare for extending the benefit of transport allowance to the government employees suffering from hearing impairment in equal with blind and orthopaedically handicapped government employees is perfectly legal and is in consonance with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.” 5. On the other hand, Ms. Suchitra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Board submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order as the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer has considered the matter in right prospective and the case of the petitioner is not covered under the provisions of said notification of the Finance Department. She further submits that so far as the nature of the disability of the petitioner is concerned, she is not entitled for the relief, as per the notification relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. She further submits that so far as the nature of the disability of the petitioner is concerned, she is not entitled for the relief, as per the notification relied upon by the counsel for the petitioner. Referring to clause 2 of the said notification, learned counsel for the respondents submits that as per clause 2, it has been decided that if the son or daughter of the deceased government servant is suffering from any disorder or disability of mind or is physically crippled or disabled so as to render him or her unable to earn a living even after attaining the age of 18 years in the case of son and 21 years in the case of daughters; but the case of the petitioner does not come in the purview of this clause. She further objecting to the prayer made by counsel for the petitioner submitted that one of the sister has been provided appointment on compassionate ground on the condition that she will take care of dependent of the deceased. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court finds that the concerned authority has come to its own finding that the petitioner is having the physical disability. Annexure 2, which is a certificate issued by the Civil Surgeon, depicts that the petitioner is suffering from 75% disability. Further in view of the notification of the Finance Department dated 3.09.1984 wherein it has been said that 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 and shall be payable to him/her for life and also in view of the law laid down the case of Deaf Employees Welfare Association (supra) , the impugned order cannot be sustained in the eye of law. 7. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 8.08.2009 is hereby quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The respondent-Jharkhand State Electricity Board is directed to issue family pension order in favour of petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/production of copy of this order. 8. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. 9. In view of the disposal of writ petition, the Interlocutory Application, on Board stands disposed of.