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 not