[2025:RJ-JP:31158] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15720/2009 Jalwati Widow Of Late Shri Chandrabhan, Near Old Bus Stand, Jatav Mohalla, Tehsil Pahadi, Distt. Bharatpur ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan Through Secretary, Public Health And Engg. Deptt., Govt. Secretariat, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Jaipur 2. Executive Engineer, Public Health And Engg. Deptt., Govt. Of Rajasthan, Bharatpur 3. Asstt. Engineer, Public Health And Engg. Deptt., Sub- Divn. Bayana, Distt. Bharatpur 4. Director, Pension Deptt., Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Singhal For Respondent(s) : Ms. Supriya Rana for Ms. Minakshi Jain, GC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 11/08/2025 1. The petitioner has filedthe instant writ petition with a prayer to direct the respondents to consider her case for family pension for the services rendered by her Late husband. 2. It has been contended in the writ petition that husband of the petitioner Late Chandrabhan Singh was appointed as work charge employee on 05.02.1992 and thereafter on 05.06.1995, he was assigned semi-permanent w.e.f. 01.01.1995 and thereafter unfortunately, he passed away on 14.04.1996. After his death, the petitioner submitted applications for granting family pension [2025:RJ-JP:31158] (2 of 3) [CW-15720/2009] however, same was not granted to her on the pretext that her husband did not complete 10 years qualifying service before his death. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that 10 years of locking period is not applicable in the case of workcharge employees and he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Smt. Lata Devi Sharma Vs. State & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition NO. 9050/2010) decided on 20.05.2014. 4. Per Contra, learned counsel for the respondents would submit that as per rules prevailing at the relevant time, petitioner was not eligible to claim family pension and therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner does not warrant any interference. 5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record. In order to claim any benefit of family pension, the petitioner was required to show her right under the Rules however, petitioner has utterly failed to establish that before the death of her Late husband he had completed the qualifying services as required under the Rules prevailing at the time of his death. 6. Even if, the judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Smt. Lata Devi (supra) is taken into consideration, it would reveal that in the aforesaid judgment, after considering the circular of the State Government dated 11.11.1994, this Court has given benefit in the cases where the concerned employee had completed five years of service. In the instant case admittedly, date of initial engagement husband of the petitioner as work charge employee was 05.02.1992 and he died on 14.04.1996. Thus, he never completed even five years of service prior to his death. Under such circumstances, the [2025:RJ-JP:31158] (3 of 3) [CW-15720/2009] judgment of Smt. Lata Devi (supra) is also of no help to the petitioner. 7. Admittedly before death, Late husband of the petitioner was never assigned permanent status and was not governed by Rajasthan Services Rules. 8. In view of above circumstances, no interference is required in the instant writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed. (ANAND SHARMA),J Neeru/42