[2026:RJ-JP:5443] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 222/2024 Mrs. Shiv Devi Sharma W/o Late Sh. Radhey Shyam Sharma, Resident Of 114/286, Sector- 11, Pratap Nagar Sanganer, Jaipur 302033 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Thorough Managing Director Parivahan Marg Jaipur 2. Chief Manager Hindaun Depot, Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Hindaun City, Karauli. 3. The Deputy Chief Manager (Administration), Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Parivahan Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Mohit Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Rajpal Dhankhar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 05/02/2026 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking direction against the respondents to consider case of the petitioner for grant of family pension in view of Rules 61 and 62 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1996'). 2. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that husband of the petitioner Shri Radhey Shyam was initially engaged in the year 1982 and pursuant to award dated 07.11.1996 passed by the Labour Court, his services were regularized with effect from 13.03.1983. Learned counsel submits that after award of the Labour Court, the respondents challenged the same before this Court, however, on account of death of husband of the petitioner, the same was rendered infructuous. [2026:RJ-JP:5443] (2 of 3) [CW-222/2024] 3. Learned counsel further submits that during the pendency of the writ petition husband of the petitioner was reinstated subject to decision of the writ petition on 30.08.2003. While he was in service, unfortunately he died on 26.08.2008. Learned counsel submits that respondent- Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation has adopted Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 for the purposes of pension and grant of family pension. He submits that although Rule 61 of the Rules of 1996 makes it clear that in the cases, where an employee has rendered continuous services of one year, then his dependents shall be entitled for family pension, and amount of the same shall be ascertained in the light of Rule 62 of the Rules of 1996. However, for no justified reason, till this date, the petitioner has been denied the benefit of family pension. Learned counsel also submits that after death of husband of the petitioner, she is facing grave financial hardship and denying the family pension for no justified reason, is causing miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that Rule 62 of the Rules of 1996 prohibits grant of family pension, where the employee has not rendered services for 7 or more years. In the instant case, before death of husband of the petitioner, he worked as regular employee for less than five years, therefore, in the light of Rule 62, the petitioner is not entitled for family pension. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The objection raised by the respondents on the basis of Rule 62 of the Rules of 1996, is totally misconceived for the [2026:RJ-JP:5443] (3 of 3) [CW-222/2024] reason that Rule 62 deals with quantum of family pension and not the eligibility or admissibility of family pension. 7. Rule 61, whereas specifically provides the eligibility for grant of family pension and Rule 61(a) makes it clear that in case, the employee dies after rendering one year's continuous service, his dependents would be entitled for family pension. Rule 62 merely, states that in case, the employee has rendered more than seven years or more service before his death, then his dependents would be entitled for family pension at the rate for 50% of the emoluments, last drawn by the employee, and in the cases, where the services rendered by the employee was less than seven years, the quantum of family pension would be 30% of the emoluments subject to minimum of Rs.1275/- per month and maximum of Rs.24,850/-. 8. 8. Thus, in the light of Rule 61 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner is entitled for grant of family pension. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to sanction and release the family pension in favour of the petitioner within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 9. As the petitioner has been denied her rightful claim by raising unjustified reasons, therefore, in view of Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996, the petitioner shall also be entitled for interest at the rate of 9% per annum. 10. Writ petition stands allowed, accordingly. 11. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s), disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J DIVYA /123