Pension benefits cannot be adjudicated through writ jurisdiction in the presence of competing marriage claims; a definitive legal spouse must be established in civil court settings.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has been instituted by the petitioner, who stands aggrieved by the unjust and arbitrary withholding of family pension by the respondents, despite her being the legally entitled beneficiary of the late employee, who had retired from the post of Assistant Zonal Manager.

2. Briefly stating the facts of the case are that the petitioner claims to be legally wedded wife of Late Shri Mool Singh Dewal, who served in the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (RSRTC) and superannuated from the post of Assistant Zonal Manager on 30.09.2000. During his lifetime, Late Shri Mool Singh Dewal was receiving pension through his Pension Payment Order (hereinafter to be referred as “PPO”) dated 28.10.2000. He passed away on 10.12.2013, whereafter the petitioner, being the nominated wife under the PPO records, submitted an application dated 01.01.2014 before the RSRTC seeking release of family pension in her favour. However, an objection was raised by one Smt. Sayar Kanwar, who claimed herself to be the wife of the deceased as her name appears in the nomination form, leading the RSRTC to direct her to obtain a succession certificate, vide letter dated 12.02.2014. Pursuant thereto, Smt. Sayar Kanwar filed a Civil Misc. Application No. 63A/2014 before the District Court, Jodhpur Metro, which came to be dismissed on 28.04.2016. Despite this, the respondents have failed to release the family pension to the petitioner, forcing her to invoke the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court on account of the continued inaction on part of the respondents.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is the legally wedded spouse and duly nominated beneficiary of Late Shri Mool Singh Dewal, as reflected in the Pension Payment Order and all statutory nomination documents furnished to the respondents in accordance with Rule 74 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as “The Rules of 1996”). It is further submitted that after the death of the employee, the petitioner alone stands entitled to receive the family pension, particularly in view of the dismissal of Civil Misc. Application No. 63A/2014 preferred by a third party claiming pensionary rights, thereby settling the dispute conclusively. Despite such clarity of entitlement, the respondents have arbitrarily withheld the family pension for an inordinate and unjustified period, thereby infringing the petitioner’s fundamental right to livelihood guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.

3.1 Learned counsel further submitted that family pension is a beneficial and welfare-oriented scheme meant to safeguard the financial security of a widow, and its denial is contrary to the principles of equity, justice, fair play, and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court. Once the Pension Payment Order is issued, after requisite verification, the respondents should act upon it, and their persistent inaction is wholly arbitrary and illegal. Hence, it is prayed that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to forthwith release the family pension to the petitioner along with all consequential benefits.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents no.1 and 2 submitted a reply in response to the show-cause notice. The foundational facts of late Shri Mool Singh Dewal’s s