L.MOHAPATRA, J & B.P.RAY, J. W.P.(C) NOS.15658 & 16550 of 2007 (Decided on 22.6.2010) ICHHAMANI SWAIN ………. Petitioner. .Vrs. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ……….. Opp.Parties. CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 ART.226. For Petitioner - Mr. P.Parija & Associates For Opp.Parties – Mr. N.N.Mohapatra (for Opp.Party No.1) Mr. J.K.Mishra (for Opp.Party No.3) Mr. S.B.Jena & Associates (for Opp.Party No.2) B.P.RAY, J. These two writ petitions have been filed under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the orders passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack. 2. The writ petition bearing W.P.(C) No. 15658 of 2007 has been filed challenging the order dated 21.9.2007 passed in Original Application No. 590 of 2006 by which the learned Tribunal refused to grant family pension to the petitioner from the date of death of her husband which was way back in the year 1957. The writ petition bearing No. 16550 of 2007 has been filed by the said petitioner challenging the order of the Tribunal dated 15.11.2007 passed in Original Application No. 555 of 2006 by which the learned Tribunal dismissed the Original Application filed by the petitioner for appointing the son of the petitioner under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme. Both the writ petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment. 3. According to the petitioner, her husband late Sarat Chandra Swain, who was working as Lineman in the Department of Telecommunication since 1947 and died in harness on 24.7.1957. According to the petitioner, after the premature death of her husband, she applied for family pension as well as the benefits under the D.C.R.G scheme and thereafter went on addressing representations to various authorities. However, the petitioner was granted family pension @ Rs.375/- per month with effect from 22.9.1977 and this order was passed in the month of April, 1996. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that she was paid arrears of the family pension from 22.9.1977 till April, 1996 and thereafter she is being granted family pension. The grievance of the petitioner is that her husband having died on 24.7.1957, she should have been granted family pension with effect from the date of death of her husband and not from 22.9.1977. Another grievance of the petitioner was that she has not been sanctioned the D.C.R.G. benefits. 4. The learned Tribunal in the impugned order held that no illegality has been committed by granting the family pension to the petitioner with effect from 22.9.1977. Accordingly, the Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the impugned order under Annexure-7. Pursuant to the notice, a counter affidavit has been filed by opp. party Nos. 1 and 2 in which it has been stated that under the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 which came into force with effect from 1.1.1964 with certain terms and conditions, the petitioner was not eligible to get any family pension. However, the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 was extended to the category of the family of the petitioner with effect from 22.9.1977 and accordingly the petitioner became eligible to get family pension with effect from 22.9.1977. As such no illegality has been committed in granting family pension to the petitioner with effect from 22.9.1977. 5. We have perused the materials available on record and also perused the GID-10 under Rule, 54 which has been annexed as Annexure-B/1 to the counter affidavit filed in the Original Application from which it would appear that Family Pension Scheme, 1964 was a contributory one and the said scheme was having condition which was done away with effect from 22.9.1977. It further appears, during the course of hearing of the writ petitions in the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India relating to Family Pension Scheme, 1964, the Government of India made a statement on 15.4.1985 before the Court indicating as to what extent they would be prepared to accept the claim of the family pensioners. Keeping in view the statement filed by the Government, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in judgment dated 30.4.1985 held that the Family Pension Scheme, 1964 was extended with effect from 22.9.1977 to the families of those Government Servants who were borne on pensionable establishment and are presently not covered under the scheme, namely, the families of those Government employees who retired/died before 31.12.1963. It further appears on the basis of such statement made by the Government of India and pursuant to the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India dated 30.4.1985, the families of the category alike the petitioner were eligible to get pension under the Scheme 1964 with effect from 22.9.1977. In such view of the matter, the opposite parties have not committed any illegality in granting the pension to the petitioner with effect from 22.9.1977. Accordingly, we do not find any error in the order of the Tribunal and therefore, the writ application filed by the petitioner for granting family pension anterior to 22.9.1977 stands dismissed. So far as W.P.(C) No. 16550 of 2007 is concerned, the petitioner has prayed for a compassionate appointment of her son on account of the death of her husband. The learned Tribunal by the impugned order dismissed the Original Application on various counts. Without examining the correctness of the reasoning of the Tribunal, we are of the considered view that no illegality has been committed by the Tribunal in refusing to issue direction for compassionate appointment after 50 years of the death of the employee. Therefore, this writ petition is also devoid of merit and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to cost. Writ petitones dismissed.