SBCWP No.5796/07. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5796/2007. Smt.Bhanwar Kanwar Vs. The Director, Pension Department Raj., Jaipur & Ors. Date of Order:- December 23, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri Mahendra Singh Gurjar for the petitioner. Shri S.D. Khaspuria, Additional Government Counsel. ******* BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner inter-alia with the prayer that respondents be directed to grant the benefit of family pension to the petitioner w.e.f. 4/3/1963 and arrears thereof together with interest @18% p.a. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that husband of the petitioner was appointed as Constable in 3rd Battalion RAC, Jaipur vide order dated 8/3/1951 and he served the respondents till 4/3/1963 when he died while in service. Although after the death of petitioner's husband, respondent-Department released the General Provident Fund to the petitioner through the office of Tehsil Deedwana in the sum of Rs.950/- however, petitioner was neither paid the family pension nor was communicated as to fulfilling of the SBCWP No.5796/07. 2 requirement. It is contended that although action was initiated by the respondents for grant of family pension to the petitioner but family pension was not actuated to her. Petitioner approached the respondents time and again and also made a representation to the C.O. IIIrd Battalion, RAC Jaipur on 27/9/1988. However, the respondents finally granted family pension to the petitioner vide order dated 25/5/1990 w.e.f. 1/4/1988 pursuant to their Circular dated 18/7/1988 (Ann.R/1) but did not pay to her the family pension w.e.f. 4/3/1963, the date on which her husband died till 31/3/1988. Learned counsel in support of his argument relied on the judgment of this Court in Smt.Amina Vs. State of Rajasthan & 4 Ors. : RLR 1995(1) 60. Per contra, Shri S.D. Khaspuria, learned Additional Government Counsel has opposed the writ petition relying on Rule 261 of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 to argue that even if it is assumed that family pension should have been granted to the petitioner from the date her husband died but he did not complete twenty years qualifying service, which is mandatory for grant of family pension. In fact, he completed only eleven years of service therefore family pension was rightly given pursuant to the Circular of the State Government dated 18/7/1988 (Ann.R/1) w.e.f. 1/4/1988. The case of Smt.Amina supra is distinguishable because husband of Smt.Amina was retired after serving the department and he himself SBCWP No.5796/07. 3 was receipent of the family pension. It is in that context, this Court granted her pension from 11/9/1963 to 31/3/1988. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, I find that Rule 261 RSR insists on completion of twenty years but it is in the case of those, who retired and starting receiving pension and their widows and dependents are claiming family pension. In the scheme of the rules, there is no such requirement of completing qualifying period of service of twenty years for those, who died while in service. Condition of continuation of family pension for a period of ten years has also not been narrated by the Government in its Circular subsequently issued. In Smt.Amina supra, it is exactly was the question that when husband of Smt.Amita died on 18/9/1961, she was paid family pension for the period w.e.f. 19/9/1961 to 31/8/1963 thereafter, she was paid family pension from 1/4/1988 pursuant to the Circular of the Government dated dated 18/7/1988. This Court held Smt.Amina entitled to get the family pension for the intervening period from 11/9/1963 to 31/3/1988 together with interest @12% p.a. There is no dispute now that pursuant to the Circular of the State Government dated 18/7/1988 (Ann.R/1), petitioner has been held entitled for getting family pension w.e.f. 1/4/1988 but the dispute remains only for the intervening SBCWP No.5796/07. 4 period from the date of death of her husband i.e. 4/3/1963 till 31/3/1988. This controversy is squarely covered by the judgment of Smt.Amina supra. Learned counsel was pointedly asked on the last date of hearing to apprise the court whether any appeal was filed by the State against the judgment rendered in Smt.Amina supra or not. On enquiry from the concerned department, it is informed that no such appeal has been filed. The judgment in the case of Smt.Amina supra has thus attained finality. In the result, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to grant family pension to the petitioner for the intervening period w.e.f. 4/3/1963 till 31/3/1988 with interest @6% p.a. Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil