Judgment

BHAGWATI, J. :- These writ petitions raise a common question of law relating to the liability of the State of Tamil Nadu for payment of family pension to widows of employees who were in the service of the former State of Madras and who retired from service before reorganisation of States under the States Reorganisation Act. 1956. The facts giving rise to these writ petitions are almost identical and it will, therefore, be enough if we state the facts of only one writ petition, namely, Writ Petition No. 4309 of 1982.

2. This writ petition came to be initiated as a result of a letter addressed to this Court by the petitioner complaining that though she was the widow of an employee of the former State of Madras, who -retired before the reorganisation of the States, under the States Reorganisation Act, 1956, she was not being given the benefit of. family pension which was granted by the State of Tamil Nadu under a Notification dated 26th May, 1979. The letter of the petitioner was treated as a writ petition and notice was issued to the State of Tamil Nadu and since it appeared that the State of Tamil Nadu was disputing its liability to pay family pension to the petitioner on the ground that the deceased husband of the petitioner was serving in Cannanore at the time of his retirement and that Cannanore having become part of the State of Kerala as a result of the provisions of the States Reorganisation Act 1956, it was the State of Kerala which was liable to pay family persion, if at all, to the petitioner, the Court also joined the State of Kerala as a respondent to the writ -petition and issued notice to the State of Kerala. It was common ground between the parties that the husband of the petitioner was in the employment of the former State of Madras and was serving as Deputy Inspector of Schools until 19th August, 1954 when he retired from service on superannuation. The place where he served last as Deputy Inspector of Schools was Cannanore and after his retirement, he settled down -in his ancestral house in village Kunniseri in Palghat District which was originally part of the former State of Madras but which on the reorganisation of the States came to belong to the State of Kerala. The husband of the petitioner was, for the sake of convenience, drawing his pension from the nearest Sub-treasury in Palghat until his death which occurred in July, 1963.

3. It appears that the State of Tamil Nadu introduced New Family. Pension Rules, 1964 granting benefit of pension to the family of a government servant on his death but this benefit was confined only to the members of the family of those government servants who retired from and after 1st April, 1964. The question of extending this benefit to the, members of the family of government servants who retired prior to 1st April, 1964 was considered by the Third Tamil Nadu Pay Commission and in its report it recommended "extension of the family pension benefits to the families of the government servants who retired prior to 1st April, 1964". Pursuant to this recommendation made by the Third Tamil Nadu Pay. Commission, the State of Tamil Nadu issued the Notification dated 26th May, 1979 extending the benefit of family pension to the members of the, family of government servants who retired prior to 1st April, 1964. Paragraph 7 of this Notification is material and we may therefore reproduce it in extenso :

7. Employees not covered by the New Family Pension Rules, 1964, fall under the following three categories :-

(i) those who are still in service,

(ii) those who have retired and are alive, and

(iii) those who have died.

(a) Considering the hardship to the families of employees not covered by the New Family Pension Rules, 1964, the Government direct that the family of an employee belonging to any of these three categories and having completed at least a years service be, sanctioned, on death of the employee, family pension at a flat rate of Rs. 100 per month Families of employees who have al