Order : SUDESH BANSAL, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. 2. This writ petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India was filed by Smt. Indra wife of deceased Suresh @ Surendra, who made prayer for grant of compassionate appointment so also for family pension, but during the pendency of the present writ petition, she has passed away and her natural son and daughter as legal representatives have been substituted on record, as petitioners. 3. As per statement of legal representatives, the prayer in respect of seeking compassionate appointment by Smt. Indra (now deceased) does not survive and the legal representatives have pressed only the prayer in respect of non-grant of family pension of Late Suresh @ Surendra. Hence, the prayer of granting compassionate appointment has rendered infructuous and writ petition is being considered only for the prayer of family pension. 4. In respect of claim for family pension, counsel for petitioners submits that Suresh @ Surendra (now deceased), was given appointment on the post of Safai Karamchari on compassionate ground vide order dated 03.04.1997, pursuant to which he joined services in the office of Nagar Nigam, Kota. Petitioner’s father- Suresh passed away while in service on 20.12.2003 and thus, has rendered service from 03.04.1997 to 20.12.2003, it means for a period of more than six years. Since petitioners are natural son and daughter of deceased employee Suresh and were/ are dependent upon his father, hence, being his legal representatives are entitled to receive the family pension as per Rule 61 of the PENSION RULES , 1996. 5. On behalf of respondents, counsel repudiates claim of the petitioners for family pension on the ground that appointment of the deceased employee-Suresh was irregular appointment since Suresh got appointment on compassionate ground showing that he is son of Moolchand whereas father’s name of Suresh was Banshi. It has been inter-alia urged that Suresh committed interpolation in the documents of ration card and other documents showing his father’s name as Moolchand in place of Banshi. 6. Learned counsel for respondents drew attention of this Court to an enquiry report dated 18.11.2022, allegedly conducted by an Enquiry Committee constituted in furtherance to the interim order dated 12.10.2022, passed by this Court. A copy of the enquiry report has been placed on record as Annexure R/28. 7. 6. Learned counsel for respondents drew attention of this Court to an enquiry report dated 18.11.2022, allegedly conducted by an Enquiry Committee constituted in furtherance to the interim order dated 12.10.2022, passed by this Court. A copy of the enquiry report has been placed on record as Annexure R/28. 7. On making a query from counsel for the respondents, he admits that order of compassionate appointment dated 03.04.1997 issued in favour of deceased Suresh has never been cancelled/recalled by Nagar Nigam, Kota, rather learned counsel for the respondents does not dispute the true fact that deceased- Suresh, pursuant to his appointment order dated 03.04.1997 rendered services from the date of joining till date of his death. 8. Counsel for the petitioners, in rebuttal arguments, submits that the enquiry report dated 18.11.2022, which has allegedly been made after death of employee- Suresh cannot be considered as an enquiry under eye of law. He has relied upon Rule 16 of the CCA Rules, 1958 stating that present enquiry has not been conducted in accordance with the procedures prescribed under such Rules. Even opportunity of hearing to any of the legal heirs of deceased-employee before conducting such enquiry was never extended and the law is well settled that the enquiry made after death of the deceased employee is per-se illegal and non-est. 9. As far as interim order dated 12.10.2022 passed by Coordinate Bench of this Court is concerned, learned counsel for petitioners submits that this order was passed merely for ensuring the presence of CEO of Nagar Nigam, Kota albeit to show reasons for non-grant of family pension to the petitioners. No specific order to conduct any de novo enquiry in respect of alleged irregular appointment of deceased-employee on compassionate ground was passed. 10. Heard. Considered. 11. At the outset, interim order dated 12.10.2022 is reproduced hereunder:- “Counsel for the respondents seeks four weeks’ time to complete his instructions with regard to payment of pension and other retiral benefits to the petitioner. Time prayed for is allowed. List on 16.11.2022. It is made clear that if pension and other retiral benefits are not paid to the petitioner before the next date of hearing, then, the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Kota shall remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing to explain as to why pension and other retiral benefits has not paid by them as yet. It is made clear that if pension and other retiral benefits are not paid to the petitioner before the next date of hearing, then, the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Kota shall remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing to explain as to why pension and other retiral benefits has not paid by them as yet. Office is directed to send a copy of this order to the Chief Executive Officer, Municipal Corporation, Kota.” 12. Perusal of the order dated 12.10.2022 makes it clear that Coordinate Bench of this Court has never issued any direction to the respondents to conduct a departmental enquiry in respect of regular/irregular appointment of deceased Suresh. 13. Indisputably, it has come on record that the husband of the original writ-petitioner-Ms. Indra, namely, Suresh, was given appointment on compassionate ground vide order dated 03.04.1997 and in pursuance thereof, he rendered services as Safai Karmchari in the office of Nagar Nigam, Kota until his death occurred on 20.12.2003. 14. It is noteworthy that appointment order passed in favour of deceased employee Suresh was never recalled/cancelled by the respondents during his lifetime or even thereafter till date. The only plea of respondents is that the appointment of deceased Suresh on compassionate appointment suffers from irregularity, which too is based on the suo-moto inquiry, conducted by the respondents post to death of the employee. 15. It is further noteworthy that in respect of alleged irregular appointment of deceased Suresh, no notice was ever issued to deceased Suresh nor any enquiry was conducted during his lifetime. The enquiry report dated 18.11.2022 has been conducted by the respondents, only after death of deceased employee Suresh, which is per se illegal. It has been laid down by High Court of Allahabad in case of Smt. Rajeshwari Devi v. State of UP and Ors. [ 2011 (2) ADJ 643 ] wherein it has been held that as soon as the employee dies, the employer- employee relationship comes to an end and no enquiry can be initiated against a deceased employee; such ratio of law has also been reiterated by High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of Priyanka Rahul Dhawas v. Cotton Corporation of India in W.P. No.17214/2017 decided on 05.02.2025. This Court does not find any order of High Court to direct the respondents to hold any enquiry. This Court does not find any order of High Court to direct the respondents to hold any enquiry. The perusal of the enquiry report nowhere evince that even a notice to petitioners (previously wife & now son and daughter as LR’s of deceased Suresh) was given, prior to inquiry. Such an enquiry, obviously cannot be termed as a lawful enquiry as envisaged under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1958 and cannot be relied upon by the Court, rather deserves to be declared as non-est, hence, the reliance placed by counsel for the respondents on the enquiry report dated 18.11.2022 is misplaced and on the plea of alleged irregular compassionate appointment of deceased, the petitioners cannot be denied their legal right of family pension. 16. At this juncture, this Court deems it just and proper to record oft-quoted and a celebrated judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S. K. Mastan Bee Vs. G.M., South Central Railway [ (2003) 1 SCC 184 ] , wherein, denial of family pension by the High Court to an illiterate widow of a Gangman in the Railways for certain period on the ground of delay in approaching the Court, was not approved by the Supreme Court. The relevant passage of the said decision is reproduced hereunder: "6. We notice that the appellants husband was working as a Gangman who died while in service. It is on record that the appellant is an illiterate who at that time did not know of her legal right and had no access to any information as to her right to family pension and to enforce her such right. On the death of the husband of the appellant, it was obligatory for her husbands employer viz. The Railways, in this case to have computed the family pension payable to the appellant and offered the same to her without her having to make a claim or without driving her to a litigation. The very denial of her right to family pension as held by the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench is an erroneous decision on the part of the Railways and in fact amounting to a violation of the guarantee assured to the appellant under Article 21 of the Constitution. The factum of the appellants lack of resources to approach the legal forum timely is not disputed by the Railways. The factum of the appellants lack of resources to approach the legal forum timely is not disputed by the Railways. The question then arises on facts and circumstances of this case, was the Appellate Bench justified in restricting the past arrears of pension to a period much subsequent to the death of the appellants husband on which date she had legally become entitled to the grant of pension? In this case as noticed by us hereinabove, the learned Single Judge had rejected the contention of delay put forth by the Railways and taking note of the appellants right to pension and the denial of the same by the Railways illegally considered it appropriate to grant the pension with retrospective effect from the date on which it became due to her. The Division Bench also while agreeing with the learned Single Judge observed that the delay in approaching the Railways by the appellant for the grant of family pension was not fatal, in spite of the same it restricted the payment of family pension from a date on which the appellant issued a legal notice to the Railways i.e. on 1-4-1992. We think on the facts of this case inasmuch as it was an obligation of the Railways to have computed the family pension and offered the same to the widow of its employee as soon as it became due to her and also in view of the fact that her husband was only a Gangman in the Railways who might not have left behind sufficient resources for the appellant to agitate her rights and also in view of the fact that the appellant is an illiterate, the learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was justified in granting the relief to the appellant from the date from which it became due to her, that is the date of the death of her husband. Consequently, we are of the considered opinion that the Division Bench fell in error in restricting that period to a date subsequent to 1-4-1992. 7. In the said view of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench to the extent that it restricts the right of the appellant to receive family pension only from 1-4-1992 and restore that right of the appellant as conferred on her by the learned Single Judge, that is from the date 21-11-1969. In the said view of the matter, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order of the Division Bench to the extent that it restricts the right of the appellant to receive family pension only from 1-4-1992 and restore that right of the appellant as conferred on her by the learned Single Judge, that is from the date 21-11-1969. The Railways will take steps forthwith to compute the arrears of pension payable to the appellant w.e.f. 21-11-1969 and pay the entire arrears within three months from the date of the receipt of this order and continue to pay her future pension." 17. Indisputably, the petitioners happen to be natural son and daughter of deceased Suresh and have been stated to be dependent upon him. There is no dispute about the applicability of PENSION RULES , 1996 in Nagar Nigam, Kota, hence, the case of the petitioners, for claim of family pension, is governed under such Rules of 1996. As per Rules 60, 61 & 62, petitioners being legal representatives of deceased Suresh are entitled for family pension. Thus, non-grant of family pension to petitioners is infringement/violation of their legal right vested by virtue of law. It is trite law that grant of family pension is a matter of legal right as has been expounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Poonamal v. Union of India [ (1985) 3 SCC 345 ] , wherein it was held that pension is a right and not a bounty or gratuitous payment and anyone entitled to the pension under the relevant rules can claim it as a matter of right. Hence, the respondents are under legal obligation and duty-bound to pay the family pension to the legal representatives of the petitioners. 18. As a result, the present writ petition stands succeed and is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the family pension to the petitioners being legal representatives of deceased-employee as permissible under the PENSION RULES , 1996. If any amount of gratuity, GPF, state insurance and other emoluments etc. are payable to the deceased employee, same may also be paid to the petitioners. If the arrears of pension and the due emoluments of service of deceased are not paid within a period of 60 days from today, same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum in terms of Rule 89 of the FAMILY PENSION RULES , 1996. No costs. are payable to the deceased employee, same may also be paid to the petitioners. If the arrears of pension and the due emoluments of service of deceased are not paid within a period of 60 days from today, same shall carry interest @ 9% per annum in terms of Rule 89 of the FAMILY PENSION RULES , 1996. No costs. 19. Stay application or pending applications(s), if any, also stand disposed of.