ORDER :

1. The petitioner has made following prayers:

“I. That the respondents may be directed to release the 50% amount in favour of the petitioner payable due to the death of the petitioner's son Shri Kush Mohan. The interest on the due amount may also be ordered to be paid to her.

II. The respondents may further be directed that the 50% payment of GPF, Gratuity, state insurance, encashment leave/PL benefits may be paid to the petitioner.

III. That respondents further may be directed to grant the proportionate pension to the petitioner looking to her need and health conditions.

IV. That in case the pension amount is paid to the respondent No. 6 by the respondent department concerned, then she may be directed to pay the proportionate amount of pension and other monitory benefits may be ordered to the share equally between the petitioner and the respondent No. 6.

V. Any other appropriate order of direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.”

2. The petitioner is mother of one Khushmohan Mehta, who served the Ayurved Department as a Class IV employee before passing away on 18.02.2019.

3. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition claiming 50% of the retireral and other dues arising out of the services rendered by said Khushmohan Mehta on the ground of she being Class-I heir.

4. In Para No. 2 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated that she is a widow and jobless illiterate woman, totally dependent upon her son who has passed away.

5. It has been stated in the writ petition that her son got married with the respondent No. 6 and remained with her only for six months and for last 30 years, respondent No. 6 was not residing with her husband (petitioner's son).

6. On 28.05.2019, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shipra Sengupta v. Mridul Sengupta & Ors.: (2009) 10 SCC 680, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has passed the interim order directing the respondents not to disburse the entire terminal benefits to respondent No. 6.

7. Mr. Sunil Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 submitted that the petitioner has concealed material facts and misled this Court inasmuch as she got compassionate appointment on the death of her husband whereafter, she voluntarily resigned from the service and has been getting pension not only for the service she has rendered but also for the service rendered by her husband and she is financially independent.

8. Mr. Sunil Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6 invited Court's attention towards Rule 66 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension Rule), 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1996') and submitted that the respondent No. 6 being wife of the deceased government employee is the only person entitled for the family pension as her daughter Priti has since married. And that the petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased employee cannot claim such right in presence of the respondent No. 6.

9. Heard.

10. Rule 66 of the Rules of 1996 reads thus:

“66. Definitions

(1) 'Family' for the purpose of these rules will include the following relations of the Government servant:

(a) wife, in the case of a male Government servant and husband, in the case of a female Government servant.

(b) a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery.

(c) son/daughter including widowed/divorced daughter till he/she attained the age of 25 years or on earning a monthly income exceeding Rs.2550/- or