JUDGMENT : 1. Rule. Learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent No.1. 2. The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate directions on the respondent authorities to release the benefit of pension/retirement benefits along with 12% interest from 31.03.2017. 3. At the outset, learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya, has submitted that at this stage, so far as the claim of interest is concerned, the petitioner will make appropriate representation before the respondent authorities claiming the same. 4. The petitioner’s late husband, who was serving as a Statistical Assistant and after attaining the age of superannuation on 31.03.2017, unfortunately, passed way on 16.11.2018. It is the case of the petitioner that though she is widow of late Mr.Narsinhbhai Lakhabhai Ranpariya, she is not being paid the family pension/retirement benefits, though many representations are made to the respondent authorities, in this regard. The respondent No.1 addressed a communication dated 23.09.2019 asking the petitioner to remain present at the Taluka Panchayat Office, Jasdan on 05.10.2019 with all the relevant documents pertaining to pension case of her late husband. Again, the petitioner was called upon by the respondent authorities vide letter dated 14.11.2019 to deposit an amount of Rs.19,750/- towards recovery of some legal dues of the deceased husband of the petitioner. In order to see that the petitioner receives the family pension, she deposited the amount of Rs.19,750/- on 02.01.2020 before the office of the respondent No.1. However, no pension was released and accordingly, she made another representation on 03.11.2020 claiming the retirement benefits. 5. It appears that, there was some dispute with regard to payment of pension whether it should be paid to the petitioner or her son, in view of the objection/application given by the late husband of the petitioner. Accordingly, the respondent authorities asked the son of the petitioner to furnish the necessary documents for release of retirement benefits to the petitioner. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya, has submitted that as per the provisions of Section 88 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, the wife of the deceased employee would be the first beneficiary to receive the family pension after the demise of the husband. 6. Learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya, has submitted that as per the provisions of Section 88 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, the wife of the deceased employee would be the first beneficiary to receive the family pension after the demise of the husband. Learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya, has further submitted that though an application for removing the petitioner as a nominee has been made by the deceased husband, the petitioner would be entitled to pension and other retirement benefits. In support of his submissions, learned advocate Mr.Ghavariya, has placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of G.L.Bhatia Versus Union of India [ 1999 (5) SCC 237 ] and thus, it is urged by him that appropriate directions may be issued to the respondent to pay pension and retirement benefits. 7. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Chauhan, appearing for learned advocate Mr.Munshaw, for the respondent No.1, while placing reliance on the affidavit dated 19.04.2022 has submitted that in view of the specific application made by the deceased husband of the petitioner dated 20.04.2017, the respondents have not passed any order releasing the pension and retirement benefits, since in the said application the deceased husband has specifically nominated his son as well as the daughter-in-law. It is thus submitted that in view of the categorical representation made by the deceased husband of the petitioner, no retirement benefits are released in favour of the petitioner. It is further submitted that a communication was also addressed to son of the petitioner on 11.11.2019 to provide relevant documents to enable the authorities to proceed ahead, however no such documents were provided and no cooperation was extended by the son of the petitioner, inspite of reminders sent to him, hence, no final decision is taken. 8. I have heard the learned advocates for the respective parties. I have also perused the relevant documents. 9. The facts, as narrated hereinabove, are not in dispute. The deceased husband of the petitioner filed an application dated 20.04.2017 informing the Taluka Development Officer, Taluka Panchayat Jasdan that after his demise, his retirement may be paid to the legal heirs i.e. son as well as the daughter-in-law. The respondent authorities, acting on such communication, are not paying the pension to the petitioner, who is widow of the deceased husband. The respondent authorities, acting on such communication, are not paying the pension to the petitioner, who is widow of the deceased husband. It is not disputed by the respondent authorities that no divorce or judicial separation has taken place between the petitioner and the deceased husband. 10. At his stage, it would be apposite to incorporate the provisions of Section 88 of the Gujarat Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 2002, which reads as under :- “88. Terms used in this chapter : For the purposes of this chapter - (a) "family", in relation to a Government employee means - (i) wife in the case of a male Government employee or husband in the case of a female Government employee, even if the marriage took place before or after retirement of the Government employee; (ii) a judicially separated wife or husband, provided that the marriage took place before the retirement of the Government employee. (iii) son or daughter who has not attained the age of twenty-five years including such son and daughter adopted legally before retirement and son or daughter born after retirement from the marriage which took place after retirement. (iv) Parents who were wholly dependent on the Government servant when he/she was alive, provided the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child at the time of his/her death. (b) "pay" means the basic pay drawn by the Government employee at the time of retirement or death while in service.” 11. As per the said statutory provisions, for the purpose of family pension and as per the definition mentioned therein, the wife, in case of a male government employee, would be entitled to the family pension. 12. The Rule 91 of the Pension Rules, 2002 is also incorporated as under :- “91. Family Pension to whom payable : (1) The period for which family pension is payable shall be as follows :- (i) In the case of a widow or widower, until the date of death or remarriage, whichever is earlier; (ii) in the case of son, until he attains the age of twenty-five years or until he gets married, whichever is earlier; and (iii) in the case of an unmarried daughter, until she attains the age of twenty-five years or until she gets married, whichever is earlier; 13. Rule 91 stipulates about the family pension to be payable to widow or widower only (i) until the date of death or remarraige, whichever is earlier and (ii) in case son of a until he attains the age of 25 years. Thus, preference is first given to widow and not the son of the deceased employee. 14. At this stage, it would be apposite to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court of India in the case of G.L..Bhatia (supra) where the Apex Court, while examining analogous provisions of Rule 54 of the Central Civil Services (Pension)Rules, 1972, has held thus : - “2. The sole question that arises for consideration in this appeal is whether the appellant, who happens to be the husband of the deceased government servant, is entitled to family pension under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules (for short "the rules") notwithstanding the fact that the deceased wife in her nomination did not include the husband. The forums below have taken the view agreeing with the authorities that since the nomination was not in favour of the husband and the husband was staying separate from the wife, the husband would not be entitled to family pension in question. This view cannot be sustained in view of the provisions contained in Rule 54 of the rules. It is too well settled that where rights of the parties are governed by statutory provisions, the individual nomination contrary to the statute will not operate. 3. Under Rule 54 sub-rule (14(b)(i) the expression "family" has been defined thus: "54. (14(Z?)(i) Wife in the case of a male government servant, or husband in the case of a female government servant…" 4. Sub-rule (8)(r) of Rule 54 states that : "54. (8)(r) If a deceased government servant or pensioner leaves behind a widow or widower, the family pension shall become payable to the widow or widower, failing which to the eligible child.” 5. In the light of the aforesaid provisions and there being no divorce between the husband and wife even though they might be staying separately, the appellant husband would be entitled to the family pension in terms of the rules as noted aforesaid and the authorities, therefore, committed error in not granting family pension to the appellant relying upon the nomination made by the deceased wife of the appellant. The impugned order is, accordingly, set aside and this appeal stands allowed.” 15. The Apex Court has thus held that the husband would be entitled to family pension even if there is error committed in the nominee form committed by the deceased wife. Though in the said case the nomination was not in favour of the husband and the husband was staying separate from the wife, the Apex Court has held that the husband would be entitled to the family pension as per the statutory provisions. 16. In the present case, the facts, which are analogous to the case which were before the Apex Court, the petitioner, who is widow and falls within a definition of Rules 88 and 91 of the Pension Rules, 2002, will be entitled to the pension and retirement benefits, even the deceased employee/late husband has expressed his desire of nominating his son and daughter-in-law as legal heirs, who would be entitled to the family pension as well as retirement benefit. The respondent - authority had informed the son of the petitioner that she has lodged her claim for pension vide communication dated 03.02.2020 and 23.06.2020, however he has not responded to such communications. He has neither cooperated with the authorities nor has he filed any legal proceedings before any forum. 17. Under the circumstances and in light of aforesaid facts, the respondent authorities are directed to finalize the pension case of the petitioner and pay all the retirement benefits to her within a period of two months from the date of receipt of writ of this order. With regard to claim of interest, it will be open for the petitioner to file appropriate representation to the respondent authorities, which shall be considered by the respondent authorities, in accordance with law. 18. With these observations, the writ petition stands allowed. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.