1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION N0.4775/2002. (STATE & ORS. VS. DEO KUMAR & ANR.) DATE OF ORDER : 07.03.2007. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Shyam Ladrecha, AGA, for the petitioner/s. Mr. Anil Kaviraj for the respondent/s. By this petition for writ, a challenge is given to the order dated 19.04.2002 passed by the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Rajasthan, Circuit Bench, Jodhpur accepting the appeal preferred by the respondent Smt. Deo Kanwar claiming family pension being widow of Shri Kishan Singh Rao, who entered in the service of the respondent from 01.11.1970 being appointed as Chaukidar and died while in service on 26.01.1985. The learned Tribunal held that Shri Kishan Singh Rao completed 10 years of service and, therefore, in light of the law laid down by this Court in the case of Smt. Fatima vs. State (SBCWP No.4837/94 decided on 06.04.98) even if no option was given to get pension, he is entitled for relaxation for obtaining pension at subsequent stage. The Tribunal accordingly directed the petitioner to make relaxation in the relevant rules and to make family pension to Smt. Deo Kanwar. 2 While giving challenge to the judgment impugned, it is stated by counsel for the petitioner that the learned Tribunal wrongly placed reliance upon the provisions of Rajasthan Civil Service Pension Rules, 1996 (for short “the Rules of 1996) as those rules are having no application in present controversy. Heard counsel for the parties. Sub-rule 5 of Rule 14 of the Rules of 1996 on which the Tribunal has placed reliance pertains to the employees employed under the Rajasthan Work Charged Employees Rules, 1964 (for short the Rules of 1964), however, from pleadings and even from the judgment, it does not reveal that petitioner Shri Kishan Singh Rao was working as work charge employee, however, even if it is assumed that he was working in work charge cadre, then too, he completed the service more than a period of 14 years and having permanent status, he was entitled for getting pension under the Rules of 1964 itself. It is further relevant to note that the Tribunal placed reliance upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Fatima (supra), wherein it was held that relaxation is required to be given for opting pension even if the amount of Contributory Provident Fund has been withdrawn. 3 In view of it, I do not find any error in the judgment impugned that may warrant interference of this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. The petition for writ, therefore, is dismissed. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/