[2025:RJ-JP:25138] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4978/2023 Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Krishan Kumar, Aged About 45 Years, R/o 95-A, Krishna Nagar, Boring Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012 (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary To Govt. Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Secretariat, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 2. The Director Social Justice And Empowerment Department, Ambedkar Bhawan, Rajmahal, G-3/1, Parivahan Marg, Residency Area, Jaipur. 3. The Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Jyoti Nagar, Lalkothi, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya For Respondent(s) : Mr. Amitosh Pareek HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 08/07/2025 1. Instant writ petition was filed by petitioner claiming for grant of family pension alleging himself to be husband of Smt. Hasina, who was posted as Assistant Administrative Officer in the Social Justice and Empowerment Department and passed away on 30.03.2020. 2. From the letter dated 21.01.2022, issued by the Social Justice and Empowerment Department, it appears that petitioner suppressed the factum of having a pending litigation for marital separation with Hasina and in that view, the family pension has been issued in favour of her son 'Mayank' as much as a compassionate appointment has also been granted in favour of her another son 'Rishi'. [2025:RJ-JP:25138] (2 of 2) [CW-4978/2023] 3. The copy of Letter dated 21.01.2022 has also been provided to the counsel for petitioner and same is taken on record. 4. Counsel for petitioner submits that the divorce proceedings, by and on behalf of Hasina, was initiated by some another lady, who is not the real wife of petitioner. Be that as it may, in the opinion of this Court, the claim of petitioner for family pension is based on several disputed questions of fact, more particularly a divorce decree in favour of Hasina, was issued by the Family Court. Although, petitioner claims that his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, to set aside such decree of divorce has been allowed, however taking into consideration the factual matrix as narrated in the Letter dated 21.01.2022, issued by the Department of Social Justice and Empowerment, this Court does not find any merit in claim of petitioner for grant of family pension of his deceased wife-Hasina. Moreover, the family pension of deceased-Smt. Hasina has already been issued in favour of her son 'Mayank', hence, no further directions in favour of petitioner, for grant of family pension can be passed. 5. It is noteworthy in the instant writ petition that petitioner has not impleaded other Legal Representatives of deceased Hasina viz. Rishi and Mayank, who happens to be her sons, as party respondents. 6. As a result, the writ petition is misconceived and same is hereby dismissed. 7. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J RONAK JAIMAN/77