ORDER : 1. Issue which falls for consideration is whether the widow of a deceased employee, who worked as an NMR in Kurnool Municipal Corporation since 1996 was entitled to pension in terms of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the 1980 Rules’). 2. Relevant facts giving rise to the aforesaid issue are as follows: One G. Ramanjaneyulu, deceased employee, was appointed as a daily wage worker/NMR in Kurnool Municipal Corporation on 01.08.1988. He was given minimum grade time scale of pay and annual increments upon pay revision on and from 01.07.1996. On 12.06.2008, his services were regularised prospectively. In the meantime, vide G.O.Ms. No. 653, dated 22.09.2004, the Government announced a new Contributory Pension Scheme which was made applicable to all employees, who are appointed on or after 01.09.2004. It was clarified that the scheme will not be applicable to existing/serving employees. The employee expired in 2012 and the petitioner, who is widow, made an application for release of family pension, gratuity and other death benefits as per the 1980 Rules by treating the qualifying service of the employee from 1996. The claim of the widow was supported by the Municipality, who claimed that the deceased employee ought to be treated in service on and from 01.07.1996 and his legal heirs are entitled to family pension in terms of the 1980 Rules. The Audit Department raised objection on the following grounds: “1. As verified from Service register Vol-1, Pg. No. 13 it is noticed that the individual was regularised prospectively in the category of PH worker against existing vacancy vide G.O. Rt. No. 856 MA&UD (D1) Department, dated 12.6.2008 are permit to commissioner to regularize w.e.f. the date of issue or order with prospective effect. 2. As per the individual appoint in PH worker post and joined on 4.9.2008 and he was not eligible for A.P. Revised Pension Rules 1980. The individual come under C.P.S. Scheme.” Hence, the claim of the petitioner was denied and she was constrained to approach the Tribunal in O.A. No. 2643 of 2015. As her case did not find favour with the Tribunal she is presently before this Court. 3. Sri. P. Amarender, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argues that the deceased employee was in the pay of the Government since 1996. As her case did not find favour with the Tribunal she is presently before this Court. 3. Sri. P. Amarender, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, argues that the deceased employee was in the pay of the Government since 1996. He had been granted minimum time scale of pay along with annual increments as revised from time to time. Although his services may have been regularised prospectively in 2008, for the purposes of pensionary benefits, he ought to have been treated in service on and from 01.07.1996 and governed by the 1980 Rules. The Tribunal erred in refusing family pension to her with reference to 2004 Contributory Pension Scheme which could not apply to existing employees. 4. Per contra, Ms. Sumathi, learned Government Pleader for the State, draws our attention to G.O.Ms. No. 856, dated 12.06.2008, whereby on the recommendation of the Commissioner, Kurnool Municipal Corporation dated 11.07.2007, the employee along with other 37 NMRs were regularised prospectively. She also refers to Memo dated 01.09.1997 wherein it is clarified that for counting the period of service for pension or for any other purpose, the period prior to the effective date of regularisation cannot be acted upon. Hence, the prior service of the deceased employee as NMR could not be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining pensionary benefits and his case was rightly considered under the Contributory Pension Scheme. 5. Pension is not a bounty given by the State to its employees. It is a right available to a superannuated employee and thereafter to his family as family pension (if the rules permit) for the past services rendered. 6. The 1980 Rules laid down the provisions for grant of pension including family pension to the employees in the State including those employed by municipality. Rules 13 and 14 of the 1980 Rules defined the nature of service which would be countenanced as “qualifying service” for the purposes of grant of pension under the said Rules. Rules 13 and 14 of the 1980 Rules read as follows: “13. Rules 13 and 14 of the 1980 Rules defined the nature of service which would be countenanced as “qualifying service” for the purposes of grant of pension under the said Rules. Rules 13 and 14 of the 1980 Rules read as follows: “13. Commencement of qualifying service - Subject to the provisions of the rules, qualifying service of a Government servant shall commence from the date he takes charge of the post to which he is first appointed either substantively or in an officiating or temporary capacity: Provided that: (a) in the case of a Government servant in a Class IV service or post who held a lien or a suspended lien on a permanent pensionable post prior to the 17th November, 1960, service rendered before attaining the age of sixteen years shall not count for any purpose. (b) in the case of a Government servant not covered by clause (a), service rendered before attaining the age of eighteen years shall not count, except for compensation gratuity. 14. Conditions subject to which service qualified: (1) The service of a Government servant shall not qualify unless his duties and pay are regulated by the Government, or under conditions determined by the Government. (2) For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the expression service means service under the Government and paid by the Government from the Consolidated Fund of the State but does not include service in a non-pensionable establishment unless such service is treated as qualifying service by the Government. From the aforesaid Rules, it appears “qualifying service” would commence from the date an employee is appointed in a permanent or temporary capacity provided his service conditions and pay are determined by the Government. The Rules do not make a distinction between a permanent or temporary employee. Admittedly, the deceased employee, while working as NMR in Kurnool Municipality, was governed by conditions of service prescribed by the Government and paid from the State exchequer. Even the Municipality accepted this fact and recommended the case of the petitioner observing as follows: “It is also to state that in APRP 1980 under Rule 14 that the service rendered as fulltime contingent post i.e. pre-absorption of all full time contingent employees service is countable as qualifying service for pensionary benefits in relaxation of Article 361 of Civil Service regulations as per G.O.Ms. No. 156/Fin and Pig (FW Pen. 1) Department dated 29.04.1983 for pensionary benefits. No. 156/Fin and Pig (FW Pen. 1) Department dated 29.04.1983 for pensionary benefits. A copy of the representation submitted by the widow of Ramanjaneyulu, Ex-PH Worker is enclosed here with perusal.” Hence, the employee had a vested right to pension as a contingent employee under the 1980 Rules. 7. It has been contended that the employee was regularised prospectively from 2008 and he had not been appointed against available vacancy in 1996. We are unable to accept the contention that the employee had not been temporarily appointed against available vacancies in the municipality. The employee had been working in the said municipality as NMR and drawing time scale of pay with annual increments from the State exchequer continuously and without break since 1996. His continuous service was duly acknowledged by the State by sanctioning the minimum time scale of pay and annual grade increments from time to time. Such payments were made under the principle of “equal pay for equal work” with regular employees. Merely because the municipality procrastinated and delayed the proposal for regularisation for more than a decade, one cannot infer that vacancies were not available in the department and the employee had not been temporarily appointed against existing vacancy. The Commissioner's recommendation for regularisation makes reference to “existing vacant posts” but does not clarify from which date such posts were remaining vacant. Nothing is also placed on record that the vacancies were subsequently created. Thus, there is no escape from the conclusion that the employee was temporarily recruited and was on the pay roll of the State since 1996 discharging his duties against exiting vacancies in the municipality. If that is so, his qualifying service as per Rule 14 of the 1980 Rules would be computed from his initial appointment in 1996 and not his date of regularisation for the purpose of pensionary benefits. 8. In this regard, learned Government Pleader has strenuously relied on the Memo dated 01.09.1997 and argued that the regularisation of the petitioner was made prospectively from 2008 and it did not entitle him to qualifying service for the prior period, 1980 Rules are statutory rules and create a vested right in a temporary employee to compute his period of qualifying service from the date of his temporary appointment for the purpose of pensionary benefits. Such right cannot be whittled down by an executive instruction as Memo dated 01.09.1997. Such right cannot be whittled down by an executive instruction as Memo dated 01.09.1997. A vested right created by a statutory rule can only be altered through amendment or repeal of the relevant rules and not by an executive instruction, as aforesaid. Even in the new pension scheme, the vested rights of existing/serving employees were protected. By Government Memo No. 653 dated 22.09.2004, a new Contributory Pension Scheme was introduced in the State. The scheme was to apply to newly recruited employees on or after 01.09.2004. However, the scheme was not applicable for all existing/serving employees. As the services of the deceased employee had been prospectively regularised in 2008, it has been argued that the petitioner was not entitled to the pensionary benefits as per the 1980 Rules. It is true that the regularisation of the employee was in 2008 with prospective effect. However, it is clear that the petitioner, though was regularised prospectively, was serving as a temporary employee and drawing salary from the State Exchequer since 1996. As per the earlier pension scheme i.e. the 1980 Rules, period of qualifying service would be countenanced from the date the employee joins the service provided his service conditions are governed by the State and he draws salary from the State exchequer irrespective of the nature of appointment, i.e. temporary or permanent. In this case, the employee was continuously discharging his duties as a temporary employee since 1996 and his pay was sanctioned by the State. Delay in regularization was due to administrative indifference and nothing is placed on record that there were no existing vacancies when he was temporarily employed. Under such circumstances, his right to pension under the 1980 Rules could not have been adversely affected by prospective regularization. As discussed earlier, executive instructions issued in 1997 would not take away the right of an employee to pensionary benefits as per statutory rules. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the vested right of temporary employees to pensionary benefits under the 1980 Rules could not have been taken away by prospective regularisation on a latter date due to no fault on his part. 9. We are informed that the petitioner has been given compassionate appointment. The Tribunal failed to appreciate that the vested right of temporary employees to pensionary benefits under the 1980 Rules could not have been taken away by prospective regularisation on a latter date due to no fault on his part. 9. We are informed that the petitioner has been given compassionate appointment. Grant of compassionate appointment is to meet the sudden exigencies arising from the unfortunate demise of the employee and does not eclipse the right to family pension and gratuity payable to the legal heir, if she is otherwise entitled under law. 10. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the deceased employee who was working as a temporary employee under the pay of the Government since 01.07.1996 would be entitled to avail of the pensionary scheme under the 1980 Rules by computing his qualifying service from the date when he was paid minimum time scale from the State exchequer, i.e. 01.07.1996. Thus, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The second respondent is directed to compute the family pension payable to the petitioner under the 1980 Rules by treating the qualifying service of the deceased employee from 01.07.1996 when he was temporarily employed in Kurnool Municipality with minimum time scale of pay. Such computation shall be made and the family pension and gratuity payable to the petitioner be released within two (2) months from date. 11. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed. No order as to costs. 12. As a sequel, Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in this Writ Petition shall stand closed.