[2026:RJ-JP:5579] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6035/2024 Champa Devi W/o Shri Late Shri Ram, aged about 76 years, R/o Panchayat Samiti Mundawar, Gram Molawas, Gram Panchayat Jalwas, Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary Department of Pension, Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan. 2. The Director, Directorate of Pension and Pensioners Welfare Rajasthan, Vidhyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 3. The Additional Director, Directorate of Pension and Pensioners Welfare Rajasthan, Vidhyut Marg, Jyoti Nagar, Jaipur. 4. The Chief Block Education Officer, Mundawar, Alwar, Rajasthan. ----Respondents For Petitioner : Ms. Aradhana Swami Advocate with Mr. Ashutosh Swami Advocate and Ms. Dhriti Sharma Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Saumil Sharma Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gopal Krishna Sharma Additional Government Counsel. Ms. Priyansha Barwar Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rahul Lodha Additional Government Counsel. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Judgment 05/02/2026 1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a direction against the respondents to grant her family pension w.e.f. 13.12.2017 along with interest, on account of the death of her husband, who retired from Government service as Teacher Grade-III on 31.08.1996. [2026:RJ-JP:5579] (2 of 7) [CW-6035/2024] 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that late Shri Ram served the Education Department of the State of Rajasthan for about 36 years and superannuated on 31.08.1996. Admittedly, he had two wives, namely Smt. Chawli Devi (first wife) and the present petitioner, Champa Devi (second wife). It is also not in dispute that during the lifetime of late Shri Ram, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the allegation of contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. However, the said proceedings culminated in his exoneration, as is evident from order dated 07.02.2007 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1225/1997, wherein the State itself admitted that Shri Ram was exonerated and was consequently held entitled to full pensionary benefits. 3. It is also contended that while filling up the pension papers, including the Form for Sanction of Pension/DCRG, late Shri Ram expressly opted for the applicability of family pension rules and nominated only the petitioner Champa Devi, as the beneficiary for family pension. The pension sanctioning authority also recorded that the pension claim was proper and acceptable. Quite significantly, the service book indicates that for the purposes of General Provident Fund, both wives were nominated in equal shares. 4. Late Shri Ram expired on 12.12.2017. It is an admitted position that thereafter, no family pension was released either to the petitioner or to the first wife, Smt. Chawali Devi. Subsequently, the first wife, Smt. Chawli Devi, also expired on 25.01.2021, leaving behind a major son, Hanuman Singh. The [2026:RJ-JP:5579] (3 of 7) [CW-6035/2024] petitioner, ageing more than 76 years, claims to be living alone and facing acute financial hardship. 5. It is stated that despite repeated representations, the respondents failed to sanction family pension in favour of the petitioner. The correspondence placed on record shows that the Pension Department insisted upon production of the death certificate of the first wife and particulars of her son, on the premise that family pension was required to be shared and further proceeded on the misconceived notion that the case of the petitioner would be governed by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1996'). 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and founded on a complete misapplication of law. It was argued that since late Shri Ram superannuated on 31.08.1996, i.e. prior to coming into force of the Rules of 1996 on 01.10.1996, hence, his pensionary and family pension rights are governed exclusively by the Rajasthan Service Rules (hereinafter to be referred as 'the RSR'). Learned counsel emphasised that under Rule 266 read with Chapter XXIII-A of the RSR, the nomination made by the deceased government servant for family pension is decisive and binding. It was further argued that the nomination of both wives in the service book was limited only to the General Provident Fund and could not be extended to family pension. 7. Learned counsel further submitted that even under Rule 268-F of the RSR, in the event of there being more than one [2026:RJ-JP:5579] (4 of 7) [CW-6035/2024] widow, family pension is payable in equal shares, but upon the death of one widow, her share lapses unless she leaves behind an eligible minor child. Since the son of the first wife is a major, no right survives in his favour. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Indra Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Others (SBCWP No.3834/1996 decided on 06.08.1999) in support of the submission that pension is not a bounty, but a statutory right and delay or laches cannot defeat a recurring entitlement like family pension. 8. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supported the action of the authorities and contended that since late Shri Ram died on 12.12.2017, the Rules of 1996 were applicable on the date of death and, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim applicability of the RSR. It was further argued that in view of the existence of two wives and a surviving son of the first wife, the family pension could not be finalised without necessary documents and particulars, and in absence thereof, the Pension Department was justified in withholding the pension. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record. 10. At the outset, it is relevant to observe that pensionary rights, including family pension, crystallise with reference to the date of retirement of the government servant. The Rules of 1996 were notified on 18.09.1996 and came into force on 01.10.1996. Late Shri Ram admittedly retired on 31.08.1996. In such circumstances, the service conditions and pensionary benefits of [2026:RJ-JP:5579] (5 of 7) [CW-6035/2024] the deceased employee shall be governed by the erstwhile part of the RSR, as amended from time to time. The mere fact that the employee died after the enforcement of the Rules of 1996, does not divest the family of the rights already accrued under the earlier rules. The stand of the respondents to the contrary is legally untenable. 11. Under Rule 266 of the RSR, a government servant is entitled to nominate members of his family for family pension in a specified order and such nomination, if valid, governs the disbursement of family pension. In the present case, the nomination form for pension unequivocally names only the petitioner as the beneficiary and the sanctioning authority has accepted the claim as proper. The nomination of both wives in the service book pertains only to the General Provident Fund and cannot be mechanically imported for the purpose of family pension, which is governed by a distinct statutory framework. 12. Even otherwise, Rule 268-F(a) of the RSR provides that where a government servant is survived by more than one widow, family pension shall be paid to them in equal shares. The aforesaid Rule further provides that on the death of a widow, her share becomes payable only to her eligible minor children and if no such eligible minor child exists, the payment of her share ceases. In the present case, the first wife expired on 25.01.2021, leaving behind a son, who is admittedly a major. Consequently, no right to family pension survives either in favour of the deceased first wife or her son. The petitioner, being the sole surviving widow, is, thus, entitled to the entire family pension. [2026:RJ-JP:5579] (6 of 7) [CW-6035/2024] 13. The insistence of the respondents on production of the death certificate of the first wife and particulars of her major son, with a view to grant him a share of family pension, is contrary to the express provisions of Rule 268-F of the RSR and reflects a patent misreading of the statutory scheme. 14. It is also well settled and as held by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of The judgment of this Court in Indra Sharma (supra) that family pension is neither a concession, nor a bounty, but is a statutory right flowing from the service rendered by the deceased employee. Delay in approaching the Court cannot defeat a claim for family pension, as it constitutes a recurring cause of action, particularly when the claimant is an aged widow dependent solely on such pension for her livelihood. Rather, in the present case, the respondents are liable to illegally depriving a rightful claimant from getting her statutory rights for more than 8 years without there being any justified reasons. Such delay is solely attributable to the respondents. 15. In view of the aforesaid discussions, this Court is of the considered opinion that the action of the respondents in withholding family pension from the petitioner is arbitrary, illegal, and contrary to the Rajasthan Service Rules. The petitioner is clearly entitled to family pension as the sole surviving widow of late Shri Ram. 16. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is hereby allowed. The respondents are directed to sanction and release family pension in favour of the petitioner w.e.f. [2026:RJ-JP:5579] (7 of 7) [CW-6035/2024] 12.12.2017 i.e. the date of death of petitioner’s husband and they are also directed to pay arrears of family pension to the petitioner along with interest at the rate of 9% per annum from the date the pension became due till actual payment. Necessary exercise in this regard shall be completed by the respondents within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 17. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J MANOJ NARWANI /147