The court clarified the obligations of a second wife towards the children of the first marriage under compassionate appointment rules while directing the State to provide necessary information regarding family pension and terminal benefits.

Order :

1. The present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been preferred by the petitioner through her maternal grandfather (Shri Ajeet Singh Dhanawat) seeking directions to the respondent No.5 (Smt. Shobha) to maintain her and pay 50% of the family pension.

2. The petitioner is daughter of Late Smt. Sulakshana Charan, who was working as Teacher Grade – III with the respondent- State and died in harness on 09.06.2013. Whereafter, her father - Shri Murardan Charan was given appointment on compassionate ground on the post of Village Development Officer on 01.05.2018.

3. The said Murardan Charan contracted second marriage with the respondent No.5 (Smt. Shobha) and he too passed away on 18.06.2021. On demise of said Shri Murardan Charan, the respondent No.5 had been given appointment on compassionate ground.

4. It is asserted that respondent No.5, who has been given appointment in lieu of the services which the petitioner’s father had rendered, is obliged to maintain the petitioner under the provisions of Rule 5(2) of the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servant Rules, 1996 and prayed that half of the salary be given to the petitioner.

5. While accepting that the respondent No.5 owes a responsibility to take care of the petitioner, learned counsel submitted that petitioner has been living with her maternal grandfather and grandmother and despite various endeavors made by her, the petitioner’s custody has not been given to her.

6. He submitted that in any event, the State can be asked to pay family pension flowing from the services which her mother (Late Smt. Sulakshana Charan) had rendered with the State Government.

7. Without giving any final opinion on the contentions raised and prayer made by the rival parties, the respondent – State (Department of Rural Development and Panchayati Raj) is directed to file an affidavit indicating therein the fact as to whom the terminal benefits on the death of said Smt. Sulakshana Charan had been given and what the due amount was.

8. The State shall also indicate in the affidavit as to whether the family pension is being paid or not.

9. The respondent No.2 – Director, State Insurance and Provident Fund Department shall also file an affidavit as to whether benefit arising out of group insurance (the petitioner’s mother) has been paid or not and if paid, to whom.

10. The petitioner’s grandfather so also respondent No.5 (Smt. Shobha) shall remain present in the Court on the next date of hearing.

11. List this case on 25.02.2025.