[Cites 3, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Shyam Singh Rathore (Ex-Hav) vs The Union Of India ... on 5 February, 2026
Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati
[2026:RJ-JD:6698-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4932/2025
Shyam Singh Rathore (Ex-Hav) S/o Ummed Singh Rathore, Aged
About 44 Years, Resdient Of Village Nimbora Po Aakora Tehsil
Jayal District Nagaur Rajasthan
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The Union Of India, Through The Secretary To The Govt
Of India Ministry Of Defence New Delhi 110011
2. The Chief Of The Army Staff, Through Director General Of
Supply And Transport Integrated Hq Of Mod Army Rk
Puram New Delhi 110011
3. The Commanding Officer, No 2 Training Battalion Mt 1 Asc
Training Centre Bangaluru Kant
4. The Officer Incharge Asc Records, Pin 900493 Co 56 Apo
5. Suman Kanwar W/o Shyam Singh Rathore, Resdient Of
Village Lilo Ki Dhani Post Udaipurwati District Jhunjhunu
Rajasthan
6. The Principal Controller Of Defence Accounts Pension,
Draupadi Ghat Allahabad Prayagraj 211014
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Jog Singh Bhati.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma.
Dr. Harish Purohit.
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP SHAH
Order
05/02/2026
1. This writ petition under Article 226 & 227 has been preferred
by the petitioner claiming following reliefs:
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:59:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6698-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-4932/2025]
"1. This writ petition may kindly be allowed with the costs, and
by way of writ, order and directions, the impugned judgment
dated 03.02.2023 (annex.7) passed in Original Application
No.38/2017 (Smt. Suman Kanwar Vs. Union of India & Ors.) by
the learned Armed Forces Tribunal, Jaipur may kindly be
quashed and set aside.
2. That the respondent authorities may kindly be directed to
make payment of arrears of pension with the pension and
pension benefits with interest to the petitioner, in compliance of
the judgment dated 03.02.2023 passed in Original Application
No.301/2017 (Ex. Hav. Shyam Singh Rathore Vs. Union of India
& Ors.).
3. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which the facts
and circumstances of the case, may kindly be passed in favour of
the petitioner."
2. This Court, with a view to facilitate an amicable resolution in
the best interest of all parties concerned, had earlier passed the
following order on 12.01.2026:
"1. This Court, in order to arrive at an amicable settlement in
the best interest of the parties, passed the following order with
the consensus of the lawyers representing both sides, on
12.01.2026:
"1. The petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Army on
23.06.2001 and took premature retirement on 17.11.2016.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner has been in a
strained matrimonial relationship with his wife and their
two sons. The respondent-wife was receiving maintenance
through the Army authorities. Certain disputes and
differences, however, continued between the parties.
2. The Original Application was decided by the learned
Tribunal on 03.02.2023, whereby the petitioner was held
to have been lawfully discharged from service and declared
entitled to pension and pensionary benefits. The learned
Tribunal further granted relief by directing that 50% of the
pension and pensionary benefits be paid to respondent No.
5, the estranged wife of the petitioner, along with their two
sons.
3. Two Original Applications were filed: one relating to
the legality of discharge and the other concerning
maintenance. Original Application No. 37, pertaining to the
discharge, stands concluded and is no longer in dispute, as
the discharge has been upheld. The present controversy is
confined solely to Original Application No. 38, whereby
50% of the pension and pensionary benefits were awarded
in favour of respondent No. 5. The said direction is under
challenge in the present writ petition.
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:59:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6698-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-4932/2025]
4. Learned counsel for the Union of India submitted on
the previous date that the pensionary benefits would have
been released in terms of the Tribunal's award had the
same not been subjected to challenge under this writ
petition and the award was accepted. It was further
submitted that the disbursement of pension and
pensionary benefits had been withheld solely on account of
the subsisting dispute between the petitioner and
respondent No. 5 with respect to the manner of their
distribution.
5. In view of the nature of the dispute, this Court
deemed it appropriate to explore the possibility of an
amicable settlement and, accordingly, invoked the process
of mediation. Learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Jog
Singh Bhati, and learned counsel for respondent No. 5, Dr.
Harish Purohit, were requested to facilitate mediation
between the parties with a view to arrive at a mutually
acceptable arrangement concerning maintenance, so as to
ensure smooth and effective disbursement of pensionary
benefits.
6. Today, the mediation has been successful. On
instructions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted
that the petitioner is agreeable to pay 30% of the pension
amount accrued till date and shall continue to pay 30% of
the monthly pension amount in future to respondent No. 5.
Learned counsel for respondent No. 5 unequivocally
accepted that the petitioner shall pay 30% of the dues
accrued till today and also 30% of the total pension
amount in future.
7. In view of the aforesaid settlement arrived at
between the parties, which is also not opposed by the
Union of India, the present writ petition is disposed of in
terms of the mediated settlement. The Union of India is
directed to release 30% of the pension payable to the
petitioner from the date of his discharge, directly into the
bank account of respondent No. 5, the particulars whereof
shall be furnished by learned counsel for respondent No. 5.
The remaining pension and all other pensionary benefits
shall be released in favour of the petitioner in accordance
with law.
8. It is clarified that respondent No. 5 shall be entitled
to maintenance only to the extent of 30% of the monthly
pension amount and not from any other pensionary
benefits. The Union of India shall, in future, continue to
release 30% of the monthly pension directly into the
account of respondent No. 5 for her lifetime. In the event
of the demise of the petitioner, respondent No. 5 shall be
entitled to family pension strictly in accordance with the
applicable statutory rules."
2. However, before the convening of the Court on 13.01.2026,
during the mentioning, the petitioner, who was present in person
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:59:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6698-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-4932/2025]
before this Court, submitted that he wants to pay 20% of his
pension as recorded hereinabove and as the present order was
yet to be signed and uploaded, in these circumstances, the
matter is directed to be listed on 04.02.2026 for further
consideration."
3. Pursuant to the successful mediation held on 12.01.2026, it
was agreed between the parties that 30% of the pension would be
paid to respondent No.5 (wife). However, before the order could
be signed and uploaded, the petitioner appeared in person on the
following day and, notwithstanding the consent already given by
his counsel during mediation, prayed that the quantum of pension
payable to the respondent No.5 (wife) as maintenance, may be
reduced from 30% to 20%.
4. In the interest of justice and on such prayer of the petitioner,
the matter was directed to be listed on 04.02.2026. On
04.02.2026, learned counsel for the parties jointly prayed for
posting the matter on 05.02.2026.
5. When the matter was taken up today i.e. 05.02.2026 in
pursuance of the earlier successful mediation, further mediation
was conducted and having regard to the fact that both the sons
are well settled, the petitioner (husband) proposed a lesser
quantum of monthly pension to the extent of 25% payable to the
respondent No.5 (wife) and learned counsel appearing for the
respondent No.5 agreed to the same.
5.1. Thus, in furtherance of the earlier successful mediation,
followed by another successful mediation conducted by the Court
today, and also in view of the agreement of both the parties as
indicated above, this Court arrives at a conclusion that 25% of the
monthly pension (alongwith arrears thereof w.e.f. 02.11.2016)
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:59:23 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6698-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-4932/2025]
shall be payable to the respondent No.5 (wife) by the respondent
No.6 directly into her bank account.
6. Accordingly, respondent No.6 is directed to release 25% of
the monthly pension of the petitioner (husband), alongwith
arrears thereof w.e.f. 02.11.2016, directly into the bank account
of respondent No.5 (wife) and continue to do so for her lifetime.
In the event of the demise of the petitioner, respondent No.5
(wife) shall be entitled to receive monthly family pension, strictly
in accordance with the applicable statutory rules, which shall be
directly payable to her in her bank account. The payment of
arrears of pension, as directed, shall be released within a period of
four weeks from today. The respondents No. 1 to 4 and 6 are
directed to ensure strict compliance of this order. All other
benefits, including the ECHS Card and Canteen Card as granted by
the learned Armed Forces Tribunal to the respondent-wife, shall
remain unaffected and continue to be extended in terms of the
learned Tribunal's order.
7. The present writ petition stands disposed of in the above
terms. All pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(SANDEEP SHAH),J (DR.PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI),J
89-Zeeshan
(Uploaded on 11/02/2026 at 03:59:23 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
