[2025:RJ-JP:34747] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3228/2023 Richa Sharma W/o Late Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma, aged about 52 Years, Resident of 384, Multipurpose School Ke Samne, Bharatpur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan through Principal Secretary, Medical and Health Education Department, Government Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Director (Non-Gazetted), Medical and Health Services, Swasthya Bhawan, Tilak Marg, C-Scheme, Jaipur (Raj.) 3. Additional Director, Medical and Health Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur 4. Chief Medical Officer and Superintendent, Bharatpur, Rajasthan 5. Chief Medical Officer, R.B.M. Hospital, Bharatpur, Rajasthan ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yash Joshi & Ms. Tanvisha Pant for Mr. Vigyan Shah, AAG HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 29/08/2025 1. By way of filing the instant writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the action of the respondents of withholding family pension to the petitioner in lieu of services rendered by her late husband Shri Mukesh Kumar Sharma. 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that late husband of the petitioner was holding the post of Assistant Radiographer, X-Ray Department in General Hospital, Bharatpur and was a substantive employee of respondent-Department. On [2025:RJ-JP:34747] (2 of 5) [CW-3228/2023] account of his false implications in a criminal case, the late husband of the petitioner had to face a criminal trial and was convicted vide judgment dated 03.04.2017 and sentence of rigorous imprisonment for three years along with fine was also imposed upon him. It was submitted that aggrieved by conviction and sentence, the petitioner filed S.B. Criminal Appeal No.704/2017 before this Court and after hearing both the parties, vide order dated 10.07.2017 this Court stayed the conviction and its effect in respect of the judgment dated 03.04.2017. Appeal filed by the late husband of the petitioner is still pending. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the meanwhile, no action whatsoever was taken by the respondent- Department against late husband of the petitioner under Rajasthan Civil Services (CCA) Rules, 1958. Neither any charge- sheet under Rules 16/17 was issued, nor any order under Rule 19 was passed. Husband of the petitioner has passed away on 26.08.2020. 4. Learned counsel further submits that under the aforesaid circumstances, effect of any conviction, moreso when it has been stayed by this Court and stay is still in operation, stood washed off soon after death of her husband and since no departmental action was taken by the respondents during his lifetime, no inquiry or any order under Rules of 1958 can be initiated or passed against the late husband of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no plausible clause has been put forward by the respondents for withholding family pension admissible to the petitioner on account of services rendered by her late husband, whereas, under the provisions of [2025:RJ-JP:34747] (3 of 5) [CW-3228/2023] Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension Rules), 1996 she is entitled to claim family pension. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that mere staying the conviction would not absolve the late husband of the petitioner of the charges levelled against him in the criminal case and the allegation of conviction has not yet been set aside by the Appellate Court. Under these circumstances, during pendency of criminal appeal, the Department cannot release any benefits to the petitioner. 6. Heard and considered. 7. Facts of the instant case, are not disputed. Although, late husband of the petitioner, who was holding the post of Assistant Radiographer, was convicted in a criminal case by the competent Court yet, such judgment of conviction has been stayed and while staying the judgment of conviction vide order dated 10.07.2017, this Court has also passed specific order stating that the effect of the conviction shall also remain stayed. 8. Under these circumstances, the criminal appeal can although be pursued by legal representatives of the convict, yet even if the criminal appeal is ultimately decided against the legal representatives, at this stage, no order under Rule 19 or any other provision of CCA Rules can be passed against the late husband of the petitioner. As such, there is nothing on record to enable the respondents to dis-entitle the petitioner from her right to receiving family pension and other preliminary benefits in respect of services rendered by late husband of the petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at [2025:RJ-JP:34747] (4 of 5) [CW-3228/2023] Principal Seat, Jodhpur in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4556/2017 (Smt. Mangu Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.), decided on 16.01.2018 where, while dealing with same circumstances as well as after appreciating the scope of Rule 19 of CCA Rules, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has observed as under:- "13. There is no doubt that the respondent had a power to impose a penalty upon the Government Servant i.e. petitioner's husband on the ground of his conduct which has led to his conviction on a criminal charge. But such invocation of Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services Classification Control and Appeal Rule, 1958 could have been resorted to only while the petitioner's husband was alive and it is absolutely clear by the precedent law cited as well as the facts in question that the order passed by the respondents on 15.12.2016 under Rule 19 (1) of CCA Rules after the death of the Government employee i.e. petitioner's husband on 05.08.2014 is totally contrary to law and is illegal." 10. Thus, the question above has already been decided by this Court that any powers under CCA Rules, could have been resorted by the respondents only during the lifetime of late husband of the petitioner and not thereafter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also placed another judgment of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Radha Devi & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2599/2010 decided on 10.02.2015, in which this Court has held as under:- "7. It is undisputed that no departmental action was taken against the employee during his life time so as to terminate him from service or to withhold his retiral benefits. Pursuant to the conviction of the employee for the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, he could have been terminated from service in reference to Rule 19 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (C.C. & A.) Rules, 1958. However, no such action was admittedly undertaken by the authorities during the service tenure of the employee. No action was undertaken [2025:RJ-JP:34747] (5 of 5) [CW-3228/2023] even after his retirement to withhold his pensionary benefits by resorting to the procedure provided under Rule 7 of the Pension Rules, 1996 during his life time. It cannot be gainsaid that the retrial benefits of an employee can only be withheld after seeking due sanction from the Governor as per mandatory provisions of Rule 7 of the Pension Rules of 1996. Since the employee has already passed away, such action is not permissible. The order Annexure-1 admittedly having been passed in total disregard of the mandatory procedure laid in Rule 7 of the Pension Rules, 1996, the same does not stand to scrutiny as being grossly illegal and arbitrary. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby allowed. The order Annexure-1 dated 14.5.2004 whereby the pension of the employee was withheld totally, is quashed. It is hereby directed that the respondent authorities shall make payment of the entire retiral benefits including pension, gratuity or any other amount which accrues to the petitioners upon the retirement and subsequent death of Sh. Radha Krishan within a period of two months from today. The accrued amount shall carry interest @ 9% as per Rule 89 of the Pension Rules, 1996. If the amount is not paid within two months, the amount shall carry interest @ 12% till the payment is made." 11. In the light of foregoing discussion as well as observations earlier made by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in above judgments, writ petition filed by the petitioner stands allowed. The respondents are directed to sanction and release family pension and other terminal benefits in respect of services rendered by late husband of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 12. In view of Rule 89 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, the petitioner shall also be entitled for the interest at the rate of 9 % per annum. Necessary compliance be made accordingly. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /44