[2025:RJ-JP:28307] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15018/2012 Smt. Kailash Kanwar W/o Late Shri Raghuveer Singh Shekhawat, R/o C/o Shri M.p. Singh Rathore, Beesla Road, Ajmer. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Union Bank Of India, Union Bank Bhawan, 329, Vidhan Bhawan Marg, Nariman Point Mumbai Through Its Chairman. 2. The Manager, Union Bank Of India, Bhilwara. 3. The Manager, Union Bank Of India, Srinagar Road, Ajmer. 4. Chief Manager, Department Of Personnel, Union Bank Of India Regional Office Sdmh Complex, Bhawani Singh Marg, Bapu Nagar, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Goyal For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rupin Kala HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 28/07/2025 1. Instant civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, was filed by petitioner, wayback on 30.08.2012, seeking following relief: “It is, therefore, humbly prayed that Your Lordships may graciously be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and i) by appropriate writ order or direction the respondents be directed to release the regular family pension and arrears with 18% interest thereof w.e.f. the date it became due to till date treating her to be member of the Pension regulations ii) by appropriate writ order or direction the respondents be directed to release the amount of P.F., gratuity and other due admissible service benefits alongwith arrears with 18% interest [2025:RJ-JP:28307] (2 of 4) [CW-15018/2012] iii) by appropriate writ order or direction the respondents be directed to consider the case of son of the petitioner namely Radhra Pratap Singh for appointment on compassionate Ground or alternatively the lum-sum ex-gratia amount in lieu thereof iv) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be given in favour of the petitioner.” 2. Heard counsel for both parties and perused the pleadings and documents, placed on record. 3. It has revealed that petitioner's husband, namely, Shri Raghuveer Singh Shekhawat, was a Class-IV employee in the Union Bank of India, who passed away on 04.05.1993. As per reply to the writ petition, filed by and on behalf of respondents, it appears that petitioner has been paid amount of gratuity and provident fund, in the year 1993 itself. Petitioner too has not denied/ disputed this fact. Therefore, as far as the relief prayed for in instant writ petition, in respect of releasing the amount of PF & gratuity, is concerned, same is misconceived, since petitioner, undeniably, received the amount of PF & gratuity as disclosed in Para No.4 of the reply to the writ petition. The claim of petitioner for grant of family pension, after receiving the amount of gratuity and provident fund, has not been substantiated by any Circular, Rules or Regulations, applicable on the respondents- Bank. 4. As far as grievance of petitioner, for grant of compassionate appointment to her son, namely, Sh. Rudra Pratap Singh or alternatively, for grant of ex gratia amount, is concerned, it has transpired that apart from petitioner, one another person, namely, Smt. Soan Kanwar, claiming herself to be wife of deceased- Shri Raghuveer Singh Shekhawat, applied for compassionate appointment. In such eventuality, due to receiving two [2025:RJ-JP:28307] (3 of 4) [CW-15018/2012] applications for compassionate appointment, respondents- Bank issued a letter dated 29.12.1995 (Ann.2), for submission of succession certificate. The copy of letter dated 29.12.1995 has been placed on record by the petitioner herself. 5. Indisputably, petitioner has neither applied for issuance of succession certificate nor succession certificate has been produced by petitioner before the Bank. Counsel for petitioner, during course of argument, has given reference to a letter dated 24.02.1994, whereunder offer of compassionate appointment was given to petitioner. Though, in the pleadings of writ petition in Para No.6, reference of letter dated 24.02.1994, finds place, but this letter has not been produced on record by the petitioner. The subsequent order dated 29.12.1995 (Ann.2) placed on record by petitioner, clearly shows that thereafter, respondents- Bank issued this letter to Smt. Soan Kanwar as well as to the petitioner, for production of succession certificate, in order to consider their respective claims for grant of compassionate appointment. It is noteworthy here that petitioner has also not impleaded Smt. Soan Kanwar, the rival claimant, as party respondent in this writ petition, who is necessary party to be heard. 6. As far as the claim of petitioner to grant ex gratia amount is concerned, counsel of petitioner failed to show any relevant scheme of the respondents- Bank, applicable at the time of death of petitioner’s husband, for grant of such amount, therefore, in absence of same, such claim too is not liable to be accepted. 7. For the aforesaid reasons, none of the relief, as prayed by petitioner in the writ petition, is liable to be accepted. The present writ petition, being devoid of any substance, is hereby dismissed. [2025:RJ-JP:28307] (4 of 4) [CW-15018/2012] 8. Pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/52