ORDER : 1. Since the petitioner in both the writ petitions are one and the same and in WPS No. 3938/2014 the petitioner is assailing the order dated 10.01.2013 passed by the respondents by which the petitioner’s application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected and in WPS No. 1973/2022 the petitioner is assailing order dated 09.09.2018 passed by the Pension Lok Adalat, Raipur by which the claim of the petitioner for family pension has been rejected arising out of same facts, they are heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief facts as reflected from the record are that the petitioner got married to the late Ariyal I. Kumar on 26.5.2005 according to the Christian Law. Because of differences, the respondent wife had to prefer an application before the Family Court, Raipur under Section 10 (vii) of the Divorce Act, 1869 bearing Civil Suit No.133A/2007, which was allowed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 20.06.2008. By the said judgment, the respondent's application for grant of divorce and permanent alimony was allowed and she was held entitled for a sum of Rs.2,000/- per month as permanent alimony as per Section 37 of the Divorce Act, 1869. 3. The petitioner in WPS No. 3938/2014 has prayed for grant of compassionate appointment on account of death of divorced husband on 04.12.2012 who succumbed to death in a road accident mainly contending that the deceased was working as Higher Grade Assistant (Administration), Branch No. 2, Transport Nagar, Korba. She immediately after the sudden demise of her husband applied for compassionate appointment before the respondent authority vide her application dated 14.12.2012. The respondent authority vide its letter dated 10.01.2013 rejected the claim for appointment on the ground that she had divorced her husband on 20.06.2008, as such, she is not entitled to get compassionate appointment. 4. The respondents have filed return contending that as per the clause 21(ii) of the Circular dated 25.02.1993 compassionate appointment may be given in favour of spouse, son or unmarried daughter of the employees. Since the petitioner is a divorced wife, therefore, she is not entitled to get compassionate appointment and would submit that rejection of the grant of compassionate appointment is legal, justified and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Since the petitioner is a divorced wife, therefore, she is not entitled to get compassionate appointment and would submit that rejection of the grant of compassionate appointment is legal, justified and would pray for dismissal of the writ petition. 5. The brother of the deceased namely Ervin Enesh Kumar has moved an application for intervention and also prayed for grant of compassionate appointment as he is solely dependent on the earning of the deceased. The petitioner has filed reply to the application and has contended that she was wife of the deceased, therefore, the intervenor has neither right to have compassionate appointment nor he can be impleaded as party to the case. It has also been contended that Ervin Enesh Kumar is in service and his wife is also in service as such also the intervenor has no right to claim compassionate appointment. It has also been contended that after death of deceased husband as a measure of one time settlement she is entitled to get compassionate appointment, family pension as they are the estate of the deceased. 6. In WPS No. 1973/2022 the petitioner reiterating the facts which have already been mentioned in WPS No. 3938/2014 and also filed written statement, has stated that the divorced husband was paying permanent alimony till his death and he expired on 04.12.2012, therefore, the decree for permanent alimony was not complied with. The petitioner moved an application for execution of the decree against the legal heirs of the husband, who are in possession of the properties belonging to the deceased. The Executing Court allowed the application holding and directing the legal heirs of the deceased husband to be liable to pay the amount of permanent alimony to the petitioner. 7. The legal heirs of her divorced husband preferred First Appeal (M) before this Court which was registered as FAM No.103/2015. The Hon’ble Division Bench vide its order dated 07.11.2016 had dismissed the appeal and remanded the matter. The operative part of the order is as under :- 7. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mrs. Aruna Basu Mullick vs. Mrs. Dorothea Mitra { AIR 1983 SC 916 } has been reiterated by the Supreme Court and followed in the matter Smt. Nandarani Mazumdar vs. Indian Airlines and Others { AIR 1983 SC 1201 }. 8. The law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mrs. Aruna Basu Mullick vs. Mrs. Dorothea Mitra { AIR 1983 SC 916 } has been reiterated by the Supreme Court and followed in the matter Smt. Nandarani Mazumdar vs. Indian Airlines and Others { AIR 1983 SC 1201 }. 8. For the foregoing, we are of the considered opinion that the matter deserves to be remitted back to the Family Court/ Executing Court to proceed to recover the amount of permanent alimony from the movable and immovable assets belonging to the deceased. It will remain open for the respondent wife to apply for enhancement of the amount. If she so desires, as also for prosecuting against any of the appellants who, according to the respondent wife, have submitted false affidavit or have tried to misled the Court. 8. It has been further contended that since name of brother of the deceased Irwin Enesh Kumar was mentioned in the service record as nominee, therefore, the amount of Gratuity, Leave encashment, Term Insurance, Group Insurance and GTIS were paid to him though he was not blood relation with the deceased as evident from Annexure P/14. It has also been contended that as per the provisions of Indian Succession Act, 1925 the wife has been included in the list of class-I as heir therefore, she is entitled to get pension and no pension can be given to forged nominee. It has also been contended that as per Section 37 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 she is getting permanent alimony till her life, as such, she is owner of the entire property of the deceased. It has also been contended that the petitioner being excutor and administrator of the property owned by the deceased as per the provisions of Section 305 of the Indian Succession Act. It has also been contended that under Christian Law the husband and wife have right of equality therefore, she is entitled to get pension and compassionate appointment. It has also been contended that the respondents in violation of Section 39 of the Insurance Act have given the benefits to unauthorised persons and have prayed for grant of pension with arrears and compassionate appointment. The petitioner filed Pension Case No. 01/2018 before the Pensioner’s Lok Adalat, District Legal Services Authority, Raipur for grant of family pension. It has also been contended that the respondents in violation of Section 39 of the Insurance Act have given the benefits to unauthorised persons and have prayed for grant of pension with arrears and compassionate appointment. The petitioner filed Pension Case No. 01/2018 before the Pensioner’s Lok Adalat, District Legal Services Authority, Raipur for grant of family pension. The said pension case was rejected on the ground that her name has not been mentioned in the service record as nominee, therefore, the petitioner has filed this writ petition and has prayed for grant of family pension/pension with arrears. 9. The respondent corporation have filed reply contending that after death of deceased on 04.12.2012 since name of brother of the deceased Irwin Enesh Kumar was mentioned in the service record as nominee, therefore, the amount of Gratuity, Leave encashment, Term Insurance, Group Insurance and GTIS were paid to him. The grant of pension and provident fund is pending consideration before the Regional Office, Bhopal. 10. The petitioner has filed rejoinder reiterating the same stand which she has taken in the writ petition. The petitioner has also moved an application to implead respondent No. 2 and 3 as party to the case which was allowed by this Court on 20.03.2023 and notices were directed to be issued on 14.06.2023 which were served upon them and they are represented through their counsel. 11. The petitioner along with her counsel would submit that the petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment as well as family pension as the right of the petitioner has already been decided in the divorce proceeding and as per the divorce proceeding there was liability on the part of her deceased husband to pay her Rs. 2,000/- maintenance per month. She had never re-married, therefore, it can be presumed that she is fully dependent on her divorced husband. The very object of compassionate appointment is to enable the dependent of the deceased employee to overcome sudden financial crisis arisen on account of death of the employee. She would further submit that she is also taking care of the property and assets of her husband. They have no children out of their wedlock. She is the only living legal heir, therefore, she would pray for allowing the petitions. She would further submit that she is also taking care of the property and assets of her husband. They have no children out of their wedlock. She is the only living legal heir, therefore, she would pray for allowing the petitions. To substantiate her submission she has referred to the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Jupudy Pardha Sarathy vs Pentapati Rama Krishna and Others {Civil Appeal No. 375 of 2007 decided on 06.11.2015}, Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel vs. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel {Appeal (C) 2003 of 2008}, Nandarani Mazumdar vs. Indian Airlines {(1983) 0 AIR(SC) 1201}, Mrs. Aruna Basu Mullick vs. Mrs. Dorothea Mitra {1983 AIR 916}, Amireddi Rajagopala Rao and Others vs. Amireddi Sitharamamma and Others {1965 AIR 1970}, Bhupinder Singh vs. Daljit Kaur {1979 (3) SCC 352}, Balvant Viswamitra and Others vs. Yadav Sadashiv Mule (D) {Appeal (Civil) 5617 of 1999 decided on 13.08.2004}, Kulbhushan Vs. Raj Kumari & Anr {1971 AIR 234}, Satyawati vs. Rajinder Singh {AIR BomR – 2013-5-395}, Shipping Corporation of India Ltd. vs. Machado Brothers and Others { AIR 2004 SC 2093 }, Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah vs Prabhawati {1957 AIR 176}, Ashok Kumar Singh vs. Vith Addl. Sessions Judge, Varanasi and Others {(1995) 3 Suppl. SCR 364}, Chaturbhuj vs Sita Bai {2007 Legal Eagle (SC) 1317}, Ashok Kumar Singh vs. Vith Addl. Sessions Judge, Varanasi and Others { AIR 1996 SC 333 }, Rani Bai vs. Shri Yadunandan Ram and Anr. {1969 AIR 1118}, Smt. Vanamala vs. Shri H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta {1995 SCC (5) 299}, Thiagarajan and Others vs. Sri Venugopalaswamy B. Koil and Others {Appeal (C) 1553 of 1999}, Jagir Kaur vs. Jaswant Singh {AIR (SC) 1963-0-1521} judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in case of Smt. Prema Vs. Nanje Gowda and Others { AIR 2003 Kant 104}, Mukta Bai vs. Kamalaksha {LAWS(Kar) 1959-10-9}, Vedavathi Williams vs. Rama Bai {AIR (KAR)-1964-0-265}, judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in case of A.S. Govindan vs. Margaret Jayammal {LAWS (mad)-1949-8-2}, Chinnappa Gouder vs. Valliammal {AIR (MAD)-1969-0-2187}, Chinnnappa Gounder vs. Valliammal {LAWS(MAD) 1968-4-9}, Y.G. Gopalakrishnan v. G. Rajammal alias Mani {AIR 2006 Madras 267}, judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Jamuna Prasad vs. Balkishan and Others {W.P. No. 12666/2013 decided on 05.05.2014}, Gowardhan Sheocharan vs. Gangabai {LAWS (MPH) 1962-8-1}, Krishna W/o Dharam Raj Jain vs. Dharam Raj S/o Laxmi Chand Jain {LAWS(MPH) 1991-1-26}, Sou. Ramabai vs. Meerabai Bai D/o Narayan Rao {AIR (MP)-1967-0-86}, judgment of High Court of Culcutta in case of Chitra Sengupta vs. Dhruba Jyoti Sengupta { AIR 1988 Cal 98 }, Kanailal Prammanik vs. Smt. Puspa Rani Pramanik { AIR 1979 Cal 172 },, judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in case of Erandol Taluka Gramodyog vs. Sunil Wate Corporation {LAWS(BOM)-1970-2-23}, Gajanan R. Salvi vs. Satish Shankar Gupta {LAWS(BOM) 2004-2-138}, Rajesh Bhai and Ors. Shantabai { AIR 1982 Bom 231 }, Vimal vs. Sukumar Anna Patil and Another {(1981) 83 BomLR 37}, Asha Anil Deshmukh vs Anil Mahadeorao Deshmukh {LAWs(BOM)-1996-1-24} judgment of this Court in case of Shashi Dewangan vs. Nandlal Dewangan {LAWS(CHH)-2006-4-7}, Samunda Bai and Another vs. General Public and Others {(2019) 3 CGLJ 270}, judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in case of Joy Varghese vs. Leelamma {LAWS(KER)-2007-2-365}, judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Orissa in case of Dinabandhu Behera and Others vs Kalandi Charan Mishra and Anr. { AIR 1995 Ori 237 }, judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in case of Punjab and Sindh Bank vs. Ch. Daljit Singh and Ors {AIR 2003 Delhi 428}, judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in case of Hira Devi vs. Harinath Chaurasiya {LAWS(ALL)-1988-8-3}, Smt. Lata alias Hemlata v. Civil Judge, Bulandshahr and others{ AIR 1993 All 133 }, judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in case of Sohan Lal vs. Kamlesh {AIR(P&H) 1984-0-332}, Gulzara Singh Nanta Singh vs. Tej Kaur {AIR(P&H) 1961-0-288}. 12. Per contra learned Sr. Counsel for the respondent corporation would submit that the petitioner is divorced wife and not judicial separated wife, therefore, she is not entitled to get family pension under the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 which are statutory in nature and binding upon the parties. He would further submit that the petitioner is not entitled to get compassionate appointment as per the LIC Recruitment (of Class III and Class IV Staff) Instructions, 1993 as modified and incorporated till 31.03.2020. The instructions only provide relaxation for grant of appointment in event of death of an employee in favour of spouse, son or unmarried daughter. The instruction grants relaxation to the spouse or to the one of the children as specified. The instruction does not provide any relaxation for a divorced wife to get appointment and would pray for dismissal of both the petitions. The instruction grants relaxation to the spouse or to the one of the children as specified. The instruction does not provide any relaxation for a divorced wife to get appointment and would pray for dismissal of both the petitions. He would further submit that as per the circular issued by the respondent Corporation, the 'spouse' is included in the list of dependents who could be given compassionate appointment, but a 'divorced wife is not included in the term 'wife'. The status of a 'divorced wife' is on different footing and she cannot be included in family unless specifically be provided so in the policy. In absence of specific inclusion of term 'divorced spouse' in the circular, the benefit of compassionate appointment and family pension cannot be extended to the petitioner. 13. Learned Amicus Curiae would submit that the petitioner being divorced woman she can claim her permanent alimony from the persons who have inherited the property of the deceased are trusties as per Section 38 of the Divorce Act, 1869. He would further submit that since petitioner’s marriage was solemnised under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 therefore, her right after divorce will be governed by the Divorce Act, 1869, therefore, her rights are protected under Section 38 of the Divorce Act. To substantiate his submission he would refer to the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Krishna Bhattacharjee Vs. Sarathi Choudhury and Another { (2016) 2 SCC 705 }, State of Rajasthan vs. Urmila Singh {2012 SCC Online Raj 1013}, G.L. Bhatia vs Union of India and Another {1999 SCC Online SC 492} judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Saraswati Pandey vs. Secretary, State of M.P. and another {(2004) 5 SLR 706, judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Kerala in case of Joy Varghese vs. Leelamma { LAWS(KER)-2007-2-365}, Rohini Velu vs. Cochin Port Trust {2000 SCC Online Ker 466}, judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras in case of N. Pitchiyammal vs. The Accountant General {W.P.(MD) No. 5401 of 2012 dated 04.02.2015}, judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of M.P. in case of Mamta Sharma vs. State of M.P. and others { (2014) 2 MP LJ 495} and judgment of this Court in case of Smt. Annapurna Jatvar vs. State of Chhattisgarh {WPS No. 5402 of 2016 dated 25.01.2018}. 14. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 15. From the above discussion the point to be determined by this Court is whether a divorcee woman is entitled to get compassionate appointment and family pension on account of death of her divorced husband when she is getting amount of permanent alimony under the Divorce Act, 1869? 16. To decide the issue raised in these petitions, it is expedient for this Court to extract relevant provisions of the Special Marriage Act, Divorce Act and the Life Insurance Corporation of India (Employees ) Pension Rules, 1995, instruction issued by the Corporation regarding grant of compassionate appointment. 17. The Special Marriage Act, 1954 defines Judicial Separation and divorce as under:- 23. Judicial separation :- (1) A petition for judicial separation may be presented to the district Court either by the husband or the wife, (a)on any of the grounds specified [in sub-section (1) [and sub-section (1-A)] [Substituted by Act 29 of 1970, Section 2 (w.e.f. 12.8.1970).] of section 27] on which a petition for divorce might have been presented; or (b) on the ground of failure to comply with a decree for restitution of conjugal rights; and the Court, on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition, and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree judicial separation accordingly. (2) Where the Court grants a decree for judicial separation, it shall be no longer obligatory for the petitioner to cohabit with the respondent, but the Court may, on the application by petition of either party and on being satisfied of the truth of the statements made in such petition, rescind the decree if it considers it just and reasonable to do so. 27. 27. Divorce [(1)] Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the rules made thereunder, a petition for divorce may be presented to the district Court either by the husband or the wife on the ground that the respondent (a) [has, after the solemnization of marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse; or (b) has deserted the petitioner for a continuous period of not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition; or] (c) is undergoing a sentence of imprisonment for seven years or more for an offence as defined in the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860). (d) has since the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty; or (e) [has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. Explanation. (d) has since the solemnization of the marriage treated the petitioner with cruelty; or (e) [has been incurably of unsound mind, or has been suffering continuously or intermittently from mental disorder of such a kind and to such an extent that the petitioner cannot reasonably be expected to live with the respondent. Explanation. In this clause, (a) the expression mental disorder means mental illness, arrested or incomplete development of mind, psychopathic disorder or any other disorder or disability of mind and includes schizophrenia; (b) the expression psychopathic disorder means a persistent disorder or disability of mind (whether or not including sub-normality of intelligence) which results in abnormally aggressive or seriously irresponsible conduct on the part of the respondent, and whether or not it requires or is susceptible to medical treatment; or (f) has been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form, or;] [***] [Omitted 'Clause (g)' by Personal Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019 (Act No. 6 of 2019), dated 21.2.2019.] (h) has not been heard of as being alive for a period of seven years or more by those persons who would naturally have heard of the respondent if the respondent had been alive; (1-A) A wife may also present a petition for divorce to the district Court on the ground, (i) that her husband has, since the solemnization of the marriage, been guilty of rape, sodomy or bestiality, (ii) that in a suit under section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (78 of 1956), or in a proceeding under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), (or under the corresponding section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), a decree or order, as the case may be, has been passed against the husband awarding maintenance to the wife notwithstanding that she was living apart and that since the passing of such decree or order, cohabitation between the parties has not been resumed for one year or upwards. [(2) [ Subject to the provisions of this Act and to the rules made thereunder, either party to a marriage, whether solemnized before or after the commencement of the Special Marriage (Amendment)Act, 1970, may present a petition for divorce to the district Court on the ground (i) that there has been no resumption or cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after passing of a decree for judicial separation in a proceeding to which they were parties; or (ii) that there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties.] The Divorce Act, 1869 provides permanent alimony and maintenance to divorced wife and Section 38 provides Court’s power to direct payment of alimony to wife or to trustee. 37. Permanent alimony and maintenance - (1) Any Court exercising jurisdiction under Chapter V or Chapter VI may, at the time of passing any decree or at any time subsequent to the decree, or application made to it for the purpose, order that the husband shall secure to the wife for her maintenance and support, if necessary, by a charge on the husbands property, such gross sum or such monthly or periodical payment of money for a term not exceeding her life, as, having regard to her own property, if any, her husbands property and ability [the conduct of the parties and other circumstances of the case] [Substituted by Act 68 of 1976, Section 36, for certain words (w.e.f. 27.5.1976).] it may seem to the Court to be just. (2) If the district Court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may, at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as it may seem to the Court to be just. (2) If the district Court is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances of either party at any time after it has made an order under sub-section (1), it may, at the instance of either party, vary, modify or rescind any such order in such manner as it may seem to the Court to be just. (3) If the district Court is satisfied that the wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section has remarried or is not leading a chaste life, [it may, at the instance of the husband vary, modify or rescind any such order and in such manner as the Court may deem just] [Substituted by Act 68 of 1976, Section 36, for certain words (w.e.f. 27.5.1976).]. Section 38. Court may direct payment of alimony to wife or to her trustee. In all cases in which the Court makes any decree or order for alimony, it may direct the same to be paid either to the wife herself, or to any trustee on her behalf to be approved by the court, and may impose any terms or restrictions which to the Court seem expedient, and may from time to time appoint a new trustee, if it appears to the Court expedient so to do. Rule 2 K of the Life Insurance Coporation of India (Employees) Pension Rules, 1995 defines family as under:- (k) “family” in relation to an employee means, (i) wife in the case of a male employee or husband in the case of a female employee; (ii) a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery and the person surviving was not held guilty of committing adultery; (iii) son who has not attained the age of twenty-five years and unmarried daughter who has not attained the age of twenty five years including such son or daughter adopted legally (iv) Unmarried/Widowed/Divorced daughter till the date of her marriage/re-marriage or the date on which her income exceeds the dependency criteria as defined in clause 8 of these instructions; (v) Parents who were wholly dependent on the deceased employee as per the dependency criteria as defined in clause 8 of these instructions, when he/she was alive, provided that the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child or had left behind only a widow who has subsequently remarried; Provided that the eligibility of a member of the family to family pension, at any particular point of time, shall be determined in order of his/her appearance in this clause. 21. RELAXATION IN FAVOUR OF NEAR RELATIES OF AN EMPLOYEE WHO DIES WHILE IN SERVICE OR RETIRES AT LEAST 5 YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SUPERANNUATION :- (I) There shall be relaxation in upper age limits and education al qualifications in favour of near relatives as defined in (ii) below, of an employee who dies while in service as prescribed in Annexure – III hereto. Where an employee is retired prematurely under Regulations 19(3) of the (Staff) Regulations on health grounds or on being incapacitated for continuous service at least five years before the date of his superannuation, commencement appointments may be made of one of the relatives mentioned in (ii) below subject to the candidate satisfying all the requirements as prescribed for appointments in the event of death while in service. Such appointment may also be made where an employee is retired prematurely at least five years before the date of his superannuation not for any misconduct but for poor performance. Such appointment may also be made where an employee is retired prematurely at least five years before the date of his superannuation not for any misconduct but for poor performance. (ii) Such relaxations shall be admissible only in favour of a spouse, son or unmarried daughter (which includes adopted son or adopted daughter) of the employee. 18. From bare perusal of the provisions of the Divorce Act and the Special Marriage Act and also considering the judgment and decree dated 20.06.2008 of the Family Court, it is quite vivid that the petitioner has moved an application for grant of decree of divorce on the count as enumerated in Section 10(VII) of the Divorce Act which was allowed by the learned First Additional Judge, Family Court, Raipur and the marriage solemnized on 26.05.2005 between the parties were dissolved. The learned Family Court has directed grant of permanent alimony of Rs.2000/- p.m. which was paid during life time of her husband but on account of death of her husband on 04.12.2012 it was not paid by the legal heirs who had inherited the property of the deceased husband. Therefore, she filed application before the learned Family Court which was allowed which was challenged before the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in FAM No. 103/2015. The Hon’ble Division Bench vide its order dated 07.11.2016 has remitted back the matter to the Family Court / Executing Court to proceed for recover the amount of permanent alimony from the movable and immovable assets belonging to the deceased. It will be remain open to the respondent wife to apply for enhancement of the amount, if she so desires and also for prosecuting any of the appellants who according to the respondents have submitted false affidavit and tried to mislead the Court. 19. From the above order of the Hon’ble Division Bench it is quite vivid that the petitioner was allowed to move an application for enhancement of amount of permanent alimony as well as to proceed for recover the amount of permanent alimony from the movable and immovable assets but does not give any declaration that the petitioner is entitled to get any other benefits of her husband, as such, the submission made by the petitioner that since she is entitled to get permanent alimony, therefore, she is entitled to get compassionate appointment and family pension are misconceived and deserves to be rejected. 20. 20. Further submission of the petitioner that once she has been held to get permanent alimony as per Section 37 of the Divorce Act she will be treated as wife or spouse to get benefit of family pension or compassionate appointment also deserves to be rejected as the family pension is admissible on certain persons having a certain status arising out of and directly attributable to relation with the deceased and where a certain benefit is admissible on account of status and status that is required on the happening certain events on becoming widow on death of the husband, such pension by no stretch of imagination could ever form part of the estate of the deceased. If it did not form part of the estate of the deceased it could never be the subject matter of testamentary disposition. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Smt. Violet Issac and Others vs. Union of India and Others { (1991) 1 SCC 725 } held in paragraphs 4 and 5 as under:- 4. The dispute between the parties relates to gratuity, provident fund, family pension and other allowances, but this Court while issuing notice to the respondents confined the dispute only to family pension. We would therefore deal with the question of family pension only. Family Pension Rules 1964 provide for the sanction of family pension to the survivors of a Railway Employee. Rule 801 provides that family pension shall be granted to the widow/widower and where there is no widow/widower to the minor children of a Railway servant who may have died while in service. Under the Rules son of the deceased is entitled to family pension until he attains the age of 25 years, an unmarried daughter is also entitled to family pension till she attains the age of 25 years or gets married, which ever is earlier. The Rules do not provide for payment of family pension, to brother or any other family member or relation of the deceased Railway employee. The Family Pension Scheme under the Rules is designed to provide relief to the widow and children by way of compensation for the untimely death of the deceased employee. The Rules do not provide for any nomination with regard to family pension, instead the Rules designate the persons who are entitled to receive the family pension. The Family Pension Scheme under the Rules is designed to provide relief to the widow and children by way of compensation for the untimely death of the deceased employee. The Rules do not provide for any nomination with regard to family pension, instead the Rules designate the persons who are entitled to receive the family pension. Thus, no-other person except those designated under the Rules are entitled to receive family pension. The Family Pension Scheme confers monetary benefit on the 'wife and children of the deceased Railway employee, but the employee has no title to it. The employee has no control over the family pension as he is not required to make any contribution to it. The Family Pension Scheme is in the nature of a welfare scheme framed by the Railway Administration to provide relief to the widow and minor children of the deceased employee. Since, the Rules do not provide for nomination of any person by the deceased employee during his life time for the payment of family pension, he has no title to the same. Therefore, it does not form part of his estate enabling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition. 5. In Jodh Singh v. Union of India & Anr., [1980] 4 SCC 306 this Court on an elaborate discussion held that family pension is admissible on account of the status of a widow and not on account of the fact that there was some estate of the deceased which devolved on his death to the widow. The Court observed: "Where a certain benefit is admissible on account of status and a status that is acquired on the happening of certain event, namely, on becoming a widow on the death of the husband, such pension by no stretch of imagination could ever form part of the estate of the deceased. If it did not form part of the estate of the deceased it could never be the subject matter of testamentary disposition.” The Court further held that what was not payable during the life time of the deceased over which he had no power of disposition could not form part of his estate. If it did not form part of the estate of the deceased it could never be the subject matter of testamentary disposition.” The Court further held that what was not payable during the life time of the deceased over which he had no power of disposition could not form part of his estate. Since the qualifying event occurs on the death of the deceased for the payment of family pension, monetary benefit of family pension cannot form part of the estate of the deceased entitling him to dispose of the same by testamentary disposition. 21. Even Rule 2(k) the LIC Pension Regulation, 1995 defines the family which includes a judicial separated wife or husband with rider, if such separation has not been granted on the ground of adultery and the person surviving was not guilty of committing adultery. There is vast difference between judicial separation and divorce. It is settled position of law that a decree of judicial separation does not terminate the marital relationship but merely results in the legal suspension of conjugal rights for a certain period while divorce decree conclusively dissolve the legal bond between husband and wife from their marital duties and obligations. The effect of judicial separation does not change the status of wife where as in case of divorce the parties ceased to be husband and wife. Divorce puts an end to the marriage and all mutual rights and obligations are terminated. The parties are free to marry again. 22. From perusal of the Pension Regulation it is quite vivid that only judicial separated husband/wife is entitled to get family pension not the divorced husband/wife. It is well settled position of law that where the language of the rules is clear and unambiguous nothing should be added to it [Unique Butyle Tube Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. U.P. Financial Coporation and Others { (2003) 2 SCC 455 }]. The provisions made in the Pension Regulation by no stretch of imagination gives way to absurdity. The term wife has been used in a strict manner and not include any divorced wife. The language employed in the rule absolutely clear and has to be guided by the rule itself and not anything else. In case at hand, it is clear that the petitioner has divorced her husband and this fact is not disputed by the petitioner. The term wife has been used in a strict manner and not include any divorced wife. The language employed in the rule absolutely clear and has to be guided by the rule itself and not anything else. In case at hand, it is clear that the petitioner has divorced her husband and this fact is not disputed by the petitioner. The Hon’ble Division Bench in Writ Appeal No. 151/2018 in case of Smt. Annapurna Jatwar Vs. State of C.G. and Others has considered the grant of compassionate appointment to the divorced wife has held that once relationship of husband and wife, and has come to an end, the petitioner no longer remains a member of the family of the deceased employee on the date of passing of the decree of divorce. The law with regard to the grant of compassionate appointment has been considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions and has taken a view that compassionate appointment has to be considered strictly in accordance with the policy or rule made by the State or the employer. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Bank of Baroda v. Baljit Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 745, decided on 21-06-2023 held in paragraph 12 to 15 as under:- 12. It is necessary to reiterate that the appointment of a candidate on compassionate basis does not create any vested right and that it is only when a candidate is covered under all clauses of the Scheme applicable at the relevant point of time that he/she could be considered for compassionate appointment. 13. In Balbir Kaur vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd., (supra) it was observed that the family benefit scheme assuring monthly payment to the family of deceased employee on the facts therein was not a substitute for compassionate appointment by the Steel Authority of India – Respondent in the said case. The said case proceeds on its own facts. The said judgment can be distinguished from the facts of the instant case as the 1998 Scheme specifically disentitles a candidate for compassionate appointment benefit on the application of the formula for calculation of monthly income if the same is less than 60% of the total emoluments which the deceased was drawing at the time of his death. The said judgment can be distinguished from the facts of the instant case as the 1998 Scheme specifically disentitles a candidate for compassionate appointment benefit on the application of the formula for calculation of monthly income if the same is less than 60% of the total emoluments which the deceased was drawing at the time of his death. The object is that it is only when a deceased employee’s family is in penury and without any source of livelihood when the employee died in harness, compassionate appointment can be considered. Since appointment on compassionate basis is an exception to the general rule for appointment by an open invitation, the exception has to be resorted to only when the candidate and his family is in penury so as to provide immediate succor on the death of the employee in harness. The same has been observed in General Manager(D&PB) vs. Kunti Tiwary (supra). In N.C. Santhosh vs. State of Karnataka(supra) a three Judge Bench of this Court reiterated that appointment on compassionate basis is a concession and not a right and the criteria laid down in the Rules and Schemes applicable must be satisfied by all aspirants. Therefore, the case for compassionate appointment has to be considered in accordance with the prevalent Scheme. Similarly, in State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Shashi Kumar, (supra), this Court has observed that compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule, the dependents of deceased government employee are made eligible by virtue of the policy of compassionate appointment and they must fulfil the terms of the policy which are framed by the States/Employers. 14. It is to be noted that in the instant case, the respondent filed a suit for declaration and mandatory injunction seeking appointment on compassionate basis which was decreed by the Trial Court and upheld and affirmed by the High Court. In State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Parkash Chand reported in (2019) 4 SCC 285 , it has been categorically held that a direction by a High Court to consider cases for compassionate appointment dehors the terms of the policy is impermissible as it would amount to re-writing the terms of the policy. This aspect has been overlooked by the High Court in the instant case. This aspect has been overlooked by the High Court in the instant case. In a similar vein, in Indian Bank vs. Promila reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729 , it has been observed that eligibility for compassionate appointment must be as per the applicable scheme and the courts cannot substitute a scheme or add or subtract from the terms thereof in exercise of judicial review. The aforesaid dicta would also apply to a suit filed seeking the relief of compassionate appointment. 15. In this regard, reference could be made to the judgment of this Court in State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653 wherein at Paragraphs 18-19 the aforesaid terms have been clearly stated. 23. From the above discussion and considering the provisions of law, this Court is of the view that the petitioner does not fall within the ambit of family or judicial separated wife to get benefit of family pension as per the Pension Regulation, 1995 and to get compassionate appointment as per the Instructions of 1993 as amended time to time. The grant of permanent alimony cannot confer any right over the petitioner to claim the benefits of compassionate appointment or family pension. Both the writ petitions deserve to be dismissed and accordingly, they are dismissed. However, it is made clear that the right which has been accrued to the petitioner in view of the order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in FAM No. 103/2015 decided on 17.11.2016 will not be adversely affected on account of dismissal of both the writ petitions. 24. No order as to costs. 25. Before parting with the case, I put on record my unreserved appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered by Mr. Sunil Otwani, Amicus Curiae in deciding the dispute raised in these writ petitions expeditiously.