Hon’ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking quashing of the Regulation 24(1) of Uttar Pradesh Rajya Sahayata Prapt Shiksha Sansthaon Ke Karmchariyon Ki Anshdayee Bhavishya Nidhi, Bima Pension Niyamawali, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as Regulation, 1964 only).

2. This writ petition has been filed by the widow of late Jagdish Prasad Jain who was an Assistant Teacher in Sir Sadilal Intermediate College, Mansoorpur District Muzaffar Nagar. Her husband died on 25.9.1987 while still in service after having served the College for 27 years one month and 25 days. He is stated to have drawn a salary of Rs. 2,060/- as last drawn salary. Under the Regulation, 1964, the petitioner-widow was receiving family pension of Rs. 198/- per month which was allowed to her only for a period of 10 years since 29.9.1987 to 24.9.1997 in terms of Regulation 24(1) of the Regulation, 1964.

3. The petitioner has challenged the validity of the said Regulation 24(1) of the Regulation, 1964 on the ground that the fixation of payment of family pension for a period of 10 years only was wholly illegal and arbitrary and did not have any nexus with the act and object of the Rules or with the very purpose and object of providing financial relief to the widow of a deceased Government employee by way of pension. Regulation 24(1) of the Regulation, 1964 reads as under:

^^¼1½ ifjokj isU'ku tks uhps mifu;e ¼2½ esa fufnZ"V /kujkf'k ls vf/kd u gks ml deZpkjh ds ifjokj dks nl o"kZ rd Lohd`r dh tk ldrh gS ftldh e`R;q de ls de chl o"kZ dh vgZdkjh lsok iwjh djus ds ckn ;k rks lsok esa jgrs gq, gqbZ gks vFkok lsok fuo`Rr ds ckn gqbZ gksA

fdUrq izfrcU/k ;g gS fd fdlh Hkh n'kk esa ifjokj isU'ku ds Hkqxrku dh vof/k ml fnukad ls tc e`r deZpkjh us vf/ko"kZ dh o; izkIr dj yh gksrh] 5 o"kZ dh vof/k ls vf/kd u gksxhA

fVIi.khμ n'kkvksa esa] ftuesa vgZdkjh lsok fu/kkZfjr U;wure vof/k ls de gks bl deh dh ekQh ugha nh tkuh pkfg,A^^

4. Perusal of clause (1) of the Regulation, 1964 shows that the family pension thereunder would be admissible for a period of 10 years for such persons who had completed at least 20 years of service or who had expired after attaining the age of superannuation.

5. I have heard Shri Pankaj Bharti, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mata Prasad, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the respondents.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the validity of Regulation 24(1) on the ground that the same imposes a wholly arbitrary time period of 10 years for the grant of the benefit of family pension which does not serve any purpose by way of financial relief to a widow of a Government servant beyond the period of 10 years.

7. In the counter-affidavit, the respondents have only justified the provisions of Regulation 24(1) of the Regulation, 1964 and have reiterated that family pension would be payable only for a period of 10 years.

8. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon a judgment of a learned Single Judge in the case of Smt. Parwati Pande v. State of Uttaranchal and others, 2004 (1) UD 603, wherein the learned Single Judge referring to the decision of the Supreme Court has held the provisions of restricting the payment of pension only for a period upto 10 years to be illegal and arbitrary and quashed the said G.O. dated 17.12.1965.

9. In D.S. Nakara and others v. Union of India, (1983) 1 SCC 305, a Constitution Bench of this Court has held that pension to civil employees of the Government and defence personnel as administered in India appear to be a compensation for service rendered in the past. It has been held that pension is neither a bounty nor a matter of grace depending upon the sweet will of the employer nor an ex-gratia payment. This is a social welfare measure rendering socio-economic justice to those who in the hey-day of their life ceaselessly toiled for the employer on an assurance that in their old age they would not be left in lurch. Paragraphs 20, 28 a