1. Claim for family pension by second widow; husband retired before new pension rules; nomination for family pension made only in her favor. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Raj) 701
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
ANAND SHARMA, J.
Champa Devi, W/o. Shri Late Shri Ram – Petitioner
Versus
State of Rajasthan, through Principal Secretary Department of Pension – Respondent
S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6035 of 2024
Decided On : 05-02-2026
Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Ms. Aradhana Swami Advocate with Mr. Ashutosh Swami Advocate and Ms. Dhriti Sharma Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Saumil Sharma Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gopal Krishna Sharma Additional Government Counsel. Ms. Priyansha Barwar Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rahul Lodha Additional Government Counsel
For the Petitioner:Ms. Aradhana Swami Advocate with Mr. Ashutosh Swami Advocate and Ms. Dhriti Sharma Advocate.
For the Respondents:Mr. Saumil Sharma Advocate on behalf of Mr. Gopal Krishna Sharma Additional Government Counsel. Ms. Priyansha Barwar Advocate on behalf of Mr. Rahul Lodha Additional Government Counsel
Pensionary rights crystallize at the date of retirement, determining the applicable rules. Under Rajasthan Service Rules, a valid family pension nomination is binding, and the death of one widow without eligible minor children entitles the surviving widow to the full pension as a non-defeatable statutory right.
Headnote:(A) Rajasthan Service Rules - Rule 266 and Rule 268-F - Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 - Family Pension - Applicability of rules - Pensionary rights, including family pension, crystallize with reference to the date of retirement of the government servant (Para 10) - If an employee retires prior to the enforcement of the 1996 Rules, their pensionary benefits are governed by the rules prevalent at the time of retirement, regardless of the date of death (Para 10) - Under Rule 266 of the service rules, a valid nomination made by the government servant for family pension is decisive and binding (Para 11) - Nomination for General Provident Fund is distinct from nomination for family pension and cannot be mechanically imported for the purpose of family pension (Para 11).
(B) Rule 268-F of the Rajasthan Service Rules - Multiple widows - Where a government servant is survived by more than one widow, family pension is payable in equal shares; upon the death of a widow, her share becomes payable only to eligible minor children, and if no such child exists, the payment of her share ceases (Para 12) - A major child of a deceased widow has no right to the family pension (Para 12).
(C) Nature of Family Pension - Family pension is a statutory right flowing from the service rendered by the deceased employee and is neither a concession nor a bounty (Para 14) - Delay in approaching the court cannot defeat a claim for family pension as it constitutes a recurring cause of action (Para 14).
Facts of the case:
A government servant retired prior to the enforcement of the 1996 pension rules. He had nominated only his second wife for family pension, although both wives were nominated for the General Provident Fund. After the employee's death, the first wife also passed away, leaving behind a major son. The authorities withheld the family pension from the second wife, insisting on the applicability of the 1996 rules and requiring details of the deceased first wife's son to share the pension.
Findings of Court:
The court held that since the employee retired before the 1996 rules came into force, the Rajasthan Service Rules apply. The nomination for family pension was valid and specifically named the petitioner. Under Rule 268-F, as the first wife left no minor children, the surviving widow is entitled to the entire family pension.
Issues: Whether pensionary rights are governed by the rules at the time of retirement or death; whether GPF nomination affects family pension eligibility; and whether a major child of a deceased widow can claim a share of the family pension.
Ratio Decidendi: Pensionary rights crystallize at the date of retirement. Under the Rajasthan Service Rules, a valid nomination for family pension is binding. Upon the death of one widow, her share ceases if there are no eligible minor children, making the surviving widow the sole beneficiary. Family pension is a non-defeatable statutory right.
Result: Writ petition allowed; respondents directed to sanction and release family pension from the date of death of the husband with interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner argues old rules govern and nomination decisive; respondents claim new rules applicable and require documents due to multiple widows. (Para 6 , 7 , 8 )
3. Pension rights crystallize at retirement; old rules apply; nomination for family pension binding; share of deceased first widow lapses as no minor child. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 )
4. Pensionary and family pension rights crystallize with reference to date of retirement; applicable rules are those in force at retirement, not death. (Para 10 , 11 )
5. Writ allowed; respondents directed to release family pension from date of death with 9% interest within 60 days. (Para 16 )
6. Which rules govern family pension rights when an employee retires before new rules take effect but dies after?
Pensionary rights, including family pension, crystallize with reference to the date of retirement. The rules in force at retirement govern, not those at death. (Para 10 )
7. Is nomination made by a government servant for family pension decisive?
Yes, under Rule 266 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, a valid nomination governs disbursement of family pension and cannot be overridden by other nominations like for provident fund. (Para 11 )
8. What happens to the share of a deceased widow under Rule 268-F when there are multiple widows?
On death of a widow, her share becomes payable only to her eligible minor children. If none exist, her share ceases and the surviving widow becomes entitled to the entire pension. (Para 12 )
9. Can delay in approaching court defeat a family pension claim?
No, family pension is a statutory right and recurring cause of action; delay cannot defeat the claim, especially for an aged dependent widow. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT :
ANAND SHARMA, J.
1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a direction against the respondents to grant her family pension w.e.f. 13.12.2017 along with interest, on account of the death of her husband, who retired from Government service as Teacher Grade-III on 31.08.1996.
2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that late Shri Ram served the Education Department of the State of Rajasthan for about 36 years and superannuated on 31.08.1996. Admittedly, he had two wives, namely Smt. Chawli Devi (first wife) and the present petitioner, Champa Devi (second wife). It is also not in dispute that during the lifetime of late Shri Ram, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the allegation of contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage. However, the said proceedings culminated in his exoneration, as is evident from order dated 07.02.2007 passed by this Court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1225/1997, wherein the State itself admitted that Shri Ram was exonerated and was consequently held entitled to full pensionary benefits.
3. It is also contended that while filling up the pension papers, including the Form for Sanction of Pension/DCRG, late Shri Ram expressly opted for the applicability of family pension rules and nominated only the petitioner Champa Devi, as the beneficiary for family pension. The pension sanctioning authority also recorded that the pension claim was proper and acceptable. Quite significantly, the service book indicates that for the purposes of General Provident Fund, both wives were nominated in equal shares.
4. Late Shri Ram expired on 12.12.2017. It is an admitted position that thereafter, no family pension was released either to the petitioner or to the first wife, Smt. Chawali Devi. Subsequently, the first wife, Smt. Chawli Devi, also expired on 25.01.2021, leaving behind a major son, Hanuman Singh. The petitioner, ageing more than 76 years, claims to be living alone and facing acute financial hardship.
5. It is stated that despite repeated representations, the respondents failed to sanction family pension in favour of the petitioner. The correspondence placed on record shows that the Pension Department insisted upon production of the death certificate of the first wife and particulars of her son, on the premise that family pension was required to be shared and further proceeded on the misconceived notion that the case of the petitioner would be governed by the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Rules of 1996').
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the entire action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and founded on a complete misapplication of law. It was argued that since late Shri Ram superannuated on 31.08.1996, i.e. prior to coming into force of the Rules of 1996 on 01.10.1996, hence, his pensionary and family pension rights are governed exclusively by the Rajasthan Service Rules (hereinafter to be referred as 'the RSR'). Learned counsel emphasised that under Rule 266 read with Chapter XXIII-A of the RSR, the nomination made by the deceased government servant for family pension is decisive and binding. It was further argued that the nomination of both wives in the service book was limited only to the General Provident Fund and could not be extended to family pension.
7. Learned counsel further submitted that even under Rule 268-F of the RSR, in the event of there being more than one widow, family pension is payable in equal shares, but upon the death of one widow, her share lapses unless she leaves behind an eligible minor child. Since the son of the first wife is a major, no right survives in his favour. Reliance was placed upon the judgment of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur in the case of Indra Sharma v. State of Rajasthan & Others (SBCWP No.3834/1996 decided on 06.08.1999) in support of the submission that pension is no
