[2026:RJ-JP:1189]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1311/2013 Smt. Sushila Devi D/o Late Shri Ram Shankar Tinka, aged about 48 years, R/o Near Temple Of Sitaram Ji Ka, Brahampuri, Ward No. 1 Lakheri, District Bundi.

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Of Rajasthan Through Its Principle Secretary, Local Self Department, Secretariat, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

2. The Director, Local Self Department, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

3. Executive Officer, Municipal Board, Lakheri, District Bundi.

----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. K. C. Sharma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sharad Joshi, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA

Judgment

12/01/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for seeking benefits of family pension in lieu of services rendered by her deceased husband Late Shri Ram Shankar Tinka, who was substantive employee in Municipal Board, Lakheri, District Bundi and who died on 19.08.1986.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that although, after his death, the petitioner has been granted benefit of compassionate appointment, however, so far as benefit of family pension is concerned, same was denied to the petitioner on the pretext that the Rajasthan Municipal Service (Pension) Rules, 1989 have become effective only from 01.10.1987 and since, husband of the petitioner expired prior to that therefore, such rules are not applicable.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid rules have been interpreted by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4970/1991 (Mangi Lal Ojha & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Anr.), which was decided on 11.07.2002 where Rule 3 and 4 of Rajasthan Municipal Service (Pension) Rules, 1989, providing enforcement of the said rules only w.e.f. 01.10.1987 and confining the same only on the persons, who retired after 01.10.1987, have been struck down and the benefits were directed to be granted even to the persons claiming for the period prior to 01.10.1987.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the aforesaid judgment was although challenged by the State Government before the Division Bench, yet the D.B. Special Appeal has been dismissed and the judgment of Single Judge has been confirmed.

5. In reply to the writ petition, the only reason for denying the benefit of early pension to the petitioner is based upon Rule 3 and 4 of the Rules of 1989, however, the judgment delivered by this Court in the case of Mangi Lal Ojha (Supra) has not been disputed by the respondents.

6. Heard and considered.

7. In the light of above, where Rule 3 and 4 of the Rules of 1989 had already been struck down, which makes the rules effective even in the cases where death of husband of the petitioner has taken place prior to 01.10.1987, therefore, in the light of judgment of Mangi Lal Ojha (Supra) duly confirmed by the Division Bench, the reason assigned by the respondents in reply to the petition is held not tenable in the eye of law.

8. Accordingly, the writ petition filed by the petitioner is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension in accordance with the Rules of 1989 and without raising any objection in respect of Rule 3 and 4 of the Rules of 1989, in case, the petitioner is otherwise held entitled for family pension, same shall be released to her within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

9. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /25