1 The State of Rajasthan & Anr. Vs. Heer Kanwar (D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (W) NO.315/2009) Date of Order :: 31.3.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.M. KAPADIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. G.R. Calla, Government Counsel for the State-appellant. 1. This special appeal is directed against the order dated 30.5.08 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court whereby the writ petition preferred by the respondent seeking direction against the appellants for providing pensionary benefits to her being widow of late Shri Megh Singh, who died while in service of Department of Education, Government of Rajasthan, has been allowed. 2. The sole contention justifying denial of the pension raised by the learned counsel before us is that since the deceased Shri Megh Singh had entered into a second marriage during the life time of his first wife, therefore, in terms of Rule 68 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996'), the respondent, who is second wife of the deceased Shri Megh Singh is not entitled for pensionary benefits. 3. Rule 68 of the Rules of 1996, which deals with “Order of Allotment” for payment of family pension to the members of the family of the deceased government servant reads as under : 2 “68. Order of Allotment (a) (i) Where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares. (ii) On the death of a widow, her share of the family pension shall become payable to her eligible child. Provided that if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of the family pension shall not lapse but shall be payable to the other widows in equal shares, if there is only one such other widow, in full, to her. (b) Where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from another wife who is not alive, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death o the Government servant or pensioner. Provided that on the share or shares of family pension payable to such a child or children or to a widow, widows ceasing to be payable, such share or shares shall not lapse, but shall be payable to the other widow or widows and/or to other child or children otherwise eligible, in equal shares, or if there is only one widow or child, in full, to such widow or child. 3 ( c ) Where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from a divorced wife or wives the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received at the time of death of the Government servant or pensioner had she not been o divorced. Provided that on the share or shares of family pension payable to such a child or children or to a widow or widows ceasing to be payable, such share or shares, shall not lapse, but shall be payable to the other widow or widows and/or to the other child or children otherwise eligible, in equal shares, or if there is only one widow or child, in full, to such widow or child. (d) Where the family pension is payable to twin children it shall be paid to such children in equal shares. Provided that when on such child ceased to be eligible his/her share shall revert to the other child and when both of them cease to be eligible the family pension shall be payable to the next eligible single child/twin children.” 4. A bare perusal of the Rule 68 of the Rules of 1996 (supra) goes to show that it in no manner debars the second wife of the deceased government servant from the payment of family pension on the ground that the Government servant had entered into second marriage during 4 the life time of his first wife. To the contrary, Rule 68 recognises the right of the pensionary benefits even by more than one widows in equal share. That apart, where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived by a widow along with child or children from another wife who is not alive, the eligible child or children are also held entitled to the share of the family pension which their mother would have received, if she had been alive at the time of the death of Government servant or pensioner.Thus, the contention sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the appellant justifying the denial of the pensionary benefits to the respondent is ex facie contrary to the Rules and not sustainable in eye of law. 5. In this view of the matter, in our considered opinion, the learned Single Judge has committed no error in granting the relief as prayed for in the writ petition. The order impugned does not warrant any interference by us in this intra court appeal. 6. Accordingly, the special appeal fails and it is hereby dismissed. [SANGEET LODHA],J. [A.M. KAPADIA],J. vijayant