Gavri Devi vs The State Of Rajasthan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 3870 Raj

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 3870 Raj
Judgement Date : 2 May, 2023

Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Gavri Devi vs The State Of Rajasthan ... on 2 May, 2023

Bench: Dinesh Mehta

[2023/RJJD/013007]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7137/2019

Gavri Devi W/o Late Shri Bhawati Shankar Mehta, Aged About 78 Years, R/o R/o Near Hatkeshwar Temple, Nagarwada, Banswara (Raj.).

----Petitioner Versus

1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Director, Department Of Ayurved, Ajmer (Raj.).

2. The Deputy Director, Department Of Ayurved, Banswara (Raj.).

3. The District Ayurved Officer, Department Of Ayurved, Banswara (Raj.).

4. The Assistant Director, State Insurance And Provident Fund, Department, Banswara (Raj.).

5. The Joint Director, Pension And Pensioner's Welfare Department, Udaipur (Raj.).

6. Smt. Dineshwari D/o Shri Hiralal Pandya,, R/o House No. 162, Village Chidiyawasa, District Banswara (Raj.).

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Pakaj Mehta with Ms. Sapna Kansara For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ravi Panwar Mr. Sunil Purohit Mr. Mehardeen Mehar

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

02/05/2023

1. The petitioner has made following prayers:-

"I. That the respondents may be directed to release the 50% amount in favour of the petitioner payable due to the death of the petitioner's son Shri Kush Mohan. The

[2023/RJJD/013007] (2 of 5) [CW-7137/2019]

interest on the due amount may also be ordered to be paid to her.

II. The respondents may further be directed that the 50% pyament of GPF, Gratuity, state insurance, encashment leave/PL benefits may be paid to the petitioner. III. That that respondents further may be directed to grant the proportionate pension to the petitioner looking to her need and health conditions.

IV. That in case the pension amount is paid to the respondent No.6 by the respondent department concerned, then she may be directed to pay the proportionate amount of pension and other monitory benefits may be ordered to the share equally between the petitioner and the respondent No.6.

V. Any other appropriate order of direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case, may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."

2. The petitioner is mother of one Khushmohan Mehta, who

served the Ayurved Department as a Class IV employee before

passing away on 18.02.2019.

3. The petitioner has preferred the present writ petition

claiming 50% of the retireral and other dues arising out of the

services rendered by said Khushmohan Mehta on the ground of

she being Class-I heir.

4. In para No.2 of the writ petition, the petitioner has stated

that she is a widow and jobless illiterate woman, totally dependent

upon her son who has passed away.

[2023/RJJD/013007] (3 of 5) [CW-7137/2019]

5. It has been stated in the writ petition that her son got

married with the respondent No.6 and remained with her only for

six months and for last 30 years, respondent No.6 was not

residing with her husband (petitioner's son).

6. On 28.05.2019, relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the case of Shipra Sengupta Vs. Mridul

Sengupta & Ors.: (2009) 10 SCC 680, a Co-ordinate Bench of this

Court has passed the interim order directing the respondents not

to disburse the entire terminal benefits to respondent No.6.

7. Mr. Sunil Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent No.6

submitted that the petitioner has concealed material facts and

misled this Court inasmuch as she got compassionate appointment

on the death of her husband whereafter, she voluntarily resigned

from the service and has been getting pension not only for the

service she has rendered but also for the service rendered by her

husband and she is financially independent.

8. Mr. Sunil Purohit, learned counsel for the respondent No.6

invited Court's attention towards Rule 66 of the Rajasthan Civil

Services (Pension Rule), 1996 (hereinafter referred to as 'the

Rules of 1996') and submitted that the respondent No.6 being wife

of the deceased government employee is the only person entitled

for the family pension as her daughter Priti has since married. And

that the petitioner, who is the mother of the deceased employee

cannot claim such right in presence of the respondent No.6.

9. Heard.

10. Rule 66 of the Rules of 1996 reads thus:-

"66. Definitions

[2023/RJJD/013007] (4 of 5) [CW-7137/2019]

(1) 'Family' for the purpose of these rules will include the following relations of the Government servant:-

(a) wife, in the case of a male Government servant and husband, in the case of a female Government servant;

(b) a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery;

1"(c) son / daughter including widowed/divorced daughter till he/she attained the age of 25 years or on earning a monthly income exceeding Rs.2550/- or upto the date of his/her marriage/re-marriage, whichever is earlier. The term son/ daughter shall also include son/daughter adopted legally and posthumous child of a Government servant.

(d) parents who were wholly dependant upon the Government servant when he/ she was alive provided the deceased employee had left behind neither a widow nor a child and the income of parent is not more than Rs.2550/- per month."

11. A simple look at the definition of family particularly Clause

(a) thereof shows that the respondent No.6 being wife is the

person entitled for family pension.

12. Clause (d) of Rule of 66 of the Rules of 1996 though confers

a right upon parent of the government servant but such right is

available only in case when the deceased government employee

has not left widow or child behind him and income of the parent is

not more than ₹2550/- per month.

[2023/RJJD/013007] (5 of 5) [CW-7137/2019]

13. In the present facts, admittedly, the respondent No.6 (wife

of the deceased government servant) is alive and the petitioner's

income is definitely more than ₹2550/- per month, as she is