SBCWP NO.6460/98. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6460/1998. Prabhati Devi (since deceased) through LR Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. Date of Order:- November 22, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Thakurlal Pandey for the petitioner. Shri B.S. Rajawat, Deputy Government Counsel. ***** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition was originally filed by Smt.Prabhati Devi. During pendency of the writ petition, she died on 14/6/2007 and her legal representatives were allowed to prosecute the writ petition substituting the petitioner. Smt.Prabhati Devi claimed that her husband was appointed in the police department in the year 1936 on the post of LHC. He was posted at Police Station Manak Chowk with his Belt No.1624. He retired on attaining the age of superannuation in 1951. The government has introduced New Family Pension Rules, 1964 vide notification dated 18/7/1988, according to which, the widows of the government employees, who retired or died before 1/3/1964 or opted for old family pension rules, would be entitled to claim pensionary benefits. SBCWP NO.6460/98. 2 It is contended that since husband of the petitioner retired in 1951 much prior to 1/3/1964, she is entitled to pensionary benefits under that scheme. Shri B.S. Rajawat, learned Deputy Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition and submitted that husband of the petitioner resigned from service on 3/11/1941 whereas, the writ petition has been filed after 47 years of his death in 1998. It is contended that Belt No.1624 was allotted to the husband of the petitioner on 26/11/1925 and as per their record, he was discharged on 29/12/1938 but lateron, that entry was struck off from the record and he was shown reinstated from 16/1/1939. Subsequently, he resigned from service on 3/11/1941 and Belt No.1624 was allotted to another Constable Kanhiya Lal. It is contended that since husband of the petitioner resigned from service, therefore provisions introduced by the Government vide notification dated 18/7/1988 cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner and consequently petitioner is not entitled to family pension. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record and considering the prayer of the writ petition to grant family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 1/4/1988, I find that petitioner has failed to establish that her husband was receiving family SBCWP NO.6460/98. 3 pension. There are disputed question of facts. While petitioner is claiming that her husband retired in 1951 whereas, the respondents ascertained on the basis of the record that he resigned from service on 3/11/1941 and he expired on 2/10/1964. Petitioner has not brought on record the documents pertaining to the period from 1951 to 1964 to show that her husband actually ever receiving any payment of pension to substantiate her claim and it is in this context that the delay assumes importance. Moreover, petitioner is now longer alive having expired on 14/6/2007. For all the stated reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil