[2026:RJ-JP:7900-DB]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1787/2026 Smt. Vinod Devi, W/o Shri Prabhu Dayal Sharma, Aged About 60 Years, Mother Of Late Jc-806351M Nb Sub Naresh Kumar Sharma, Resident Of Village And Post-Manakasas, Tehsil-

Udaipurwati, District Jhunjhunu -333801 (Rajasthan).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The Union Of India, Through Secretary Ministry Of Defence, Govt Of India, New Delhi 110011

2. The Addl Dte Gen Of Personnel Services, Ags Branch Ihq Of Mod (Army) (Army/ps-7), Room No-537, 5Th Floor, A Block, Defence Office Complex, Kg Marg, New Delhi-

110001

3. Pcda (P), Draupadi Ghat, Prayagraj (Up)-211014

4. The Oic, Army Education Corps Records, Pin-908777, C/o

56 Apo

5. The Director Recruiting, Army Recruiting Office, Jhunjhunu (Raj)-333001

6. The Zila Sainik Welfare Officer, Jhunjhunu (Raj)-333001

7. The Managing Director, Army Group Insurance Agi Bhawan, Post Bag No-14, Rao Tula Ram Marg. Po- Basant Vihar, New Delhi-110057

8. Smt Nisha Sharma, Wd/o Jc-806351M Late Nb Sub Naresh Kumar Sharma, R/o Vpo-Mehara Jatuwas, Teh-

Khetri, District-Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan)-333036 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dhura Ram Mr. Amit Kumar Dehran For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bharat Vyas, ASG assisted by Ms. Anima Chaturvedi, Adv.

Mr. Vipin Sharma, Adv.

Mr. Rameshwar Lal

Order

19/02/2026

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is mother of the deceased army officer challenging the order dated

29.08.2025 passed by the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Jaipur.

2. The dispute relates to the apportionment of the family pension. The learned Tribunal while deciding the matter in para No.11 observed as under:-

“11. Having considered overall facts and circumstances of the case and also the fact that the Applicant is residing in a rented accommodation and have onerous responsibilities of upbringing two small school going children and construction of house after purchase of a plot and also the fact that the Applicant has also expressed her desire for sharing of Family Pension with her old aged mother-in-law at the ratio 85:15 out of compassion, we consider the division of Special Family Pension between the Widow and the Mother of the deceased soldier at the ratio 75:25 wef the date of this Order. We direct that the Respondents shall issue Corrigendum PPO within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.”

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the tribunal has committed serious illegality in deciding the family pension in the ratio of 75:25 and wrongly given 75% share of family pension in favour of the widow of the deceased and according to the petitioner it should be 60:40, so the petitioner can get 40% share in the family pension. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is having responsibility of one married daughter and one unemployed son.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that the order passed by the tribunal is just and proper. Counsel further submits that the petitioner is widow of the deceased employee having two small school going children with her and prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.

5. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

6. After going through the order of the Tribunal and upon consideration of the overall facts and circumstances of the case, we are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Tribunal giving 25% share of the family pension to the mother and 75% share of the family pension to the widow of the deceased who is having liability of two school going children residing with her. In our considered view, if the another son of the petitioner is not doing anything, she cannot claim any amount from the family pension for her unemployed son.

7. In that view of the matter, no case is made out for interference by this Court.

8. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.

(RAVI CHIRANIA),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J JY