1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2607/2007 Smt.Shanti Devi Joshi versus State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order :: 2 nd April, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. Sunil Bhandari, for Mr. M.R.Singhvi, for the petitioner. Mr. B.L.Bhati, for the respondents. .... On attaining the age of superannuation, Shri Srikishan Joshi, the husband of the petitioner, while working as Upper Division Clerk in the Department of Education, stood retired from service on 30.6.1992. Prior to that, a criminal case for misappropriation of funds in a tune of Rs.13,122/- was lodged against him and that ultimately resulted into his conviction on 6.12.1995. The appeal preferred to challenge the conviction also came to be rejected. The revision petition giving challenge to the order passed by the appellate court is pending before this Court. Due to conviction aforesaid, only provisional pension was sanctioned to Shri Srikishan Joshi and that remain in currency uptil his death i.e. on 18.6.2004. Subsequent 2 thereto the family pension was not allowed to the petitioner on the count that her husband Late Shri Srikishan Joshi was getting only provisional pension and no such provisional family pension could have been allowed to her. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. It is urged on behalf of the petitioner that the provisional pension was sanctioned to the husband of the petitioner as the revision petitions challenging the order of conviction were pending and, therefore, that should have been continued qua the petitioner also as no result of those petitions is yet borne out. Per contra, as per the respondents, after death of her husband the petitioner is not entitled for family pension since the judicial proceedings are pending. There is no provision for grant of provisional pension after death of government servant in view of Rule 99 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1996”). On careful examination of Rule 99 of the Rules of 1996, I do not find any bar for grant of provisional family pension. As a matter of fact, as per Rule 95 of the Rules of 1996 claims for family pension and death gratuity are required to be decided 3 by the Head of the Office and after determination and computation of family pension, sanction, drawal and its disbursement is required to be made. As per Rule 99 of the Rules of 1996 the only bar is for payment of death gratuity and not for pension. What it appears is that the respondents want to apply the provisions of Rule 99 of the Rules of 1996 only for the Government Servants, who died while in service. Pertinent to note here that under the Rules of 1996 a family pension is given even to the family of a retired government servant and, therefore, to restrict the provisional family pension only to the employees died while in service, shall be against the object and intention of the statute. Interpretation of a statute is always required to be made with a view to make it workable for achieving its object. The interpretation put forward by the respondents will frustrate the very purpose of granting provisional family pension to the family of a retired government servant. As a matter of fact the reasons for grant of family pension to a retired government servant and a government servant died while in service are same, hence the cause giving rise to extend family pension cannot be a ground for denial of provisional family pension. The writ petition, thus, is allowed. The respondents are directed to determine and compute the provisional pension to the petitioner from the date of death of her husband Shri Srikishan Joshi and to make 4 payment of the same within a period of three months from today. No order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. Kkm/ps.