The court ruled that while a widow's claim for pension may be suspended due to criminal charges, the child's right to terminal dues and family pension must be upheld.

Order :

(DINESH MEHTA, J.)

1. The petitioners have approached this Court with a grievance that the respondents are not paying them the terminal dues, including pension etc. which has accrued to them on account of death of Dr. Chandan Choudhary (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Government servant’) being husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 who has passed away on 06.03.2023.

2. Mr. Tanuj Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submitted that death of the Government servant occurred under suspicious circumstances and father of the Government servant has leveled allegation of murder upon the petitioner No.1 (wife of the Government servant). He submitted that the case for retiral/terminal dues was not processed in light of provision contained in Rule 73 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1996’).

3. On 08.01.2025, Mr. Deepak Choudhary, learned Additional Advocate General cum Public Prosecutor was directed to appear in this matter and apprise the Court about the status of the FIR lodged by father of the Government servant. He was also asked to ascertain whether the daughter of the Government servant is living with her paternal grandparents or mother/maternal grandparents.

4. In furtherance of the direction so issued, learned Additional Advocate General cum Public Prosecutor has produced a report dated 20.01.2025 given by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mandore, Jodhpur (East), inter-alia, stating that investigation is under way and that the petitioner No.2 – Janvi Choudhary, the daughter of the Government servant is living with her mother (petitioner No.1) and maternal grandparents at-21, Godaro Ka Bas, Vishnu Nagar, Digadi Kala Police Station Banad, Jodhpur (East).

5. Mr. Godara, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that respondents’ action is illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as even charge-sheet has not been filed against the petitioner No.1. He alternatively prayed that at least half of the benefits be given to the petitioner No.2 in the meantime.

6. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon Rule 69 of the Rules of 1996, which reads thus:-

“69. Family pension not payable to more than one member at the same time

(i) Except as provided in rule 68, the family pension shall not be payable to more than one member of the family at the same time.

(ii) If a deceased Government servant or pensioner leaves behind a widow or widower, the family pension shall become payable to the widow or widower, failing which to the eligible child.

(iii) Family pension to the children shall be payable in the order of their birth and the younger of them will not be eligible for family pension unless the elder next above him/her has become ineligible for the grant of family pension.”

7. Mr. Pareek, learned counsel for the Pension Department submitted that since the petitioner No.1 – wife of the Government servant is accused of murdering her husband, she cannot be given any pensionary benefits or any other retiral/terminal dues. He added that it is only the petitioner No.2 – daughter of the Government servant, who can get the same, but such amount cannot exceed half of the total payable amount, as the deceased Government servant has left behind him two dependents –petitioner No.1 being his wife and petitioner No.2 being his daughter.

8. For such purpose, Mr. Pareek relied upon Rule 68 of the Rules of 1996 which reads thus:-

“68. Order of Allotment-(a) (i) Where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid in equal shares.
(ii) On the death of a widow, h