CW 988/07 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.988/2007 Rukmani Devi Versus State & (2) Ors. Date of Order ::: 11/09/08 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Manoj Pareek, for petitioner Mr. JK Agrawal, Addl.Govt. Counsel for respondents. Petitioner - widow of Ravindra Narain Pareek has approached this Court seeking terminal benefits which were due & payable to her husband who had retired from service on 31/03/99 on attaining age of superannuation as is evident from order dt.11/04/2000 (Ex.3). Husband of petitioner initially joined as Teacher (Physical Education) on 18/12/1965. When terminal benefits due and payable to her husband on retirement vide order dt.11/04/2000 were not paid but her claim was rejected by respondents vide order dt.14/08/06 (Ex.5) on the premise that her husband was not entitled for any terminal benefits in view of R.26(2) of Rajasthan Civil Service Rules, 1996 (“Rules, 1996”) being not applicable, she has assailed rejection by way of instant petition. Counsel for petitioner submits that despite the fact as observed by competent authority in order dt.11/04/2000 (Ex.3) that no inquiry U/r 16 or 17 of Rajasthan Civil Services CW 988/07 //2// (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules (“CCA Rules”) was pending against husband of petitioner, his terminal benefits which became due & payable on the date of his retirement on 31/03/1999 have been illegally declined while rejecting claim vide order dt.14/08/06 (Ex.5) on the premise of non-application of R.26(2) of Rules, 1996. Indeed husband of petitioner retired from service on 31/03/99 and within fews months thereafter, died on 31/07/99. That apart, husband of petitioner was promoted on the recommendations of DPC against quota of 1997-98 as Deputy District Education Officer (Physical Education) vide order dt.22/09/97 (Ex.1) and it is not in dispute that husband of petitioner was entitled for pension under Rajasthan Civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1996 but respondents have denied the same on the premise that after he joined at Goner (Jaipur), remained absent from duty since 02/08/82 and never reported back on duty and in view of R.26(2), his wife was not entitled for family pension. However, no material has been placed on record to substantiate that husband of petitioner had ever remained willful absent as alleged by respondents in reply since 02/08/82 or that any disciplinary action was ever CW 988/07 //3// initiated against him while contrarily respondents have passed orders giving him promotion as is evident from Ex.1 dt.22/09/97 based on recommendations of DPC for the post of Dy. District Education Officer (Physical Education) against quota of 1997-98 and that apart, respondents issued order dt.11/04/2000 (Ex.3) retiring husband of petitioner w.e.f. 31/03/99 on attaining age of superannuation while further verifying in order (Ex.3) that no disciplinary inquiry either U/r 17 or 16 of CCA Rules is pending against him; as such husband of petitioner was entitled for pension for services rendered by him on attaining age of superannuation under Pension Rules, 1996 and after his death, his family including petitioner is entitled for family pension which otherwise could not have been deprived. R.26(2) of Pension Rules, 1996, referred to in order impugned (Ex.5) has wrongly been made inapplicable while petitioner is otherwise entitled for family pension. In the opinion of this Court, rejection of claim of petitioner for terminal benefits of her husband and after his death, her family pension is not legally sustainable and petitioner being widow is certainly entitled for grant of family pension and terminal benefits of her husband. CW 988/07 //4// Consequently, writ petition succeeds and is hereby allowed. Order dt.14/08/06 (Ex.5) rejecting claim of petitioner is quashed & set aside. Respondents are directed to release terminal benefits of husband of petitioner fro m the date of his retirement (31/03/1999) and after his death (31/07/99), pensionary benefits including family pension under Pension Rules, 1996 alongwith interest @ 9% per annum from the date of its accrual till actual payment. Compliance of this order be made within two months. No order as to costs. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p4/988CW07PNS1109.doc