[2025:RJ-JP:33975] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5100/2014 Javitri Devi W/o Late Sh. Baijnath Dubey, aged about 63 years, R/o House No.535, Rajendra Nagar, Bharatpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Pensioners and Welfare Department, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Director Pension and Pensioners Welfare Department, behind Finance Bhawan, New Vidhansabha, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 3. The Inspector General of Police, Police Headquarter, Jaipur, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Nitesh Rawat For Respondent(s) : Ms. Somitra Chaturvedi, Dy. G.C. Mr. Shubham Gupta on behalf of Mr. Rahul Lodha, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 26/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition seeking a direction against the respondents to release full family pension in favour of the petitioner along with arrears from the year 1984. 2. It is submitted that the petitioner was the second wife of Late Sh. Baijnath Dubey, who was holding the post of Sub- Inspector in the Department of Police and died on 10.09.1983. It has been submitted that Late Sh. Baijnath Dubey performed marriage with the petitioner after death of his first wife. He had one son out of wedlock with his first wife, who was seventeen and half years at the time of death of his father. [2025:RJ-JP:33975] (2 of 4) [CW-5100/2014] 3. It has been submitted that death of Sh. Baijnath Dubey has taken place on 10.09.1983 and since then, the petitioner has been receiving only 50% of the family pension, admissible in lieu of services rendered by Late Sh. Baijnath Dubey. It was submitted that, on account of wrong interpretation of Rule 268F of Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 (for short, 'RSR') (now repealed) and Rule 68 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1996 (for short, 'the Rule of 1996'), instead of granting full pension, the respondents are paying only 50% pension which is causing serious prejudice and miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition stating therein that so far as family pension is concerned, the Rules prevailing at the time of death of deceased government servant shall apply. In the instant case, as the death took place in the year 1983, therefore, Rule 268F of RSR prevailing at the relevant time shall be applicable in the instant case. 5. It was submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that admittedly the petitioner was second wife of Late Sh. Baijnath Dubey and he was also survived by one son, who was born out of his wedlock with first wife. Under these circumstances, in view of Rule 268F, the petitioner was entitled only for 50% of the admissible pension in lieu of services of Late Sh. Baijnath Dubey and the remaining 50% was to be paid to the eligible minor son at the relevant time. It was submitted that on attaining age of majority by the son of first wife, his share in pension would also cease, however, there is nothing in the Rules to make the petitioner entitled for remaining 50% share after son of deceased government servant from his first wife became major. [2025:RJ-JP:33975] (3 of 4) [CW-5100/2014] 6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. The facts mentioned in the writ petition are in quite vague and evasive manner in the writ petition; neither date of death of first wife has been given in the writ petition, nor has the petitioner mentioned date of her marriage with Late Sh. Baijnath Dubey. Even date of death of Late Sh. Baijnath Dubey has not been given in the writ petition, however, it was verbally informed by the petitioner that he died on 10.09.1983. 8. Be that as it may, the rights of the petitioner for claiming family pension would be governed by the Rules which were prevailing on 10.09.1983. Rule 268F(a) is quite clear, which reads as under: "268F Order of allotment:- A pension sanctioned under chapter will be allowed: (a) to a widow, if the deceased was a male Government Servant provided that where Government Servant is survived by more than on widow the pension will be paid to them in equal shares. On the death of a widow here share of the pension will become payable to her eligible minor child. If at the time of her death a widow leaves no eligible minor child, the payment of her share of the pension will cease, provided further that where a Government servant is survived by a widow but has left behind an eligible minor child from another wife, the eligible minor child will be paid the share of pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of the Government servant." 9. Bare perusal of the aforesaid Rule would make it clear that in the circumstances where the deceased government servant was survived by the petitioner (second wife) and son of first wife, the petitioner would be entitled for 50% of the family pension, [2025:RJ-JP:33975] (4 of 4) [CW-5100/2014] which is admittedly being paid to the petitioner. For remaining 50%, the petitioner cannot claim any right whatsoever. 10. Even otherwise for adjudicating the rights which accrued wayback in the year 1983, the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in the year 2014 and no explanation whatsoever has been given in the memo of writ petition to justify such delay of 31 years. 11. In the light of foregoing discussion, no case for interference under Article 226 of Constitution of India is made out and the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J DAKSH/66