1 SBCW NO.1161/2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR. O R D E R S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 1161/2002 Smt. Inder Kanwar Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others. Date of Order : : 19/02/2009 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R. PANWAR Mr. R.S.Saluja, for the petitioner. Mr. K.K.Bissa, Addl. Govt. Counsel for respondents. BY THE COURT: By the instant writ petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents No.2 and 3 Panchayati Raj Department to prepare the papers for family pension and send the same to the respondent No.1 Pension Department for payment of provisional family pension on the death of her late husband Shri Bhanwar Singh Rathore who was recipient of the provisional pension after having been superannuated by the respondent State. The petitioner's husband Late Shri Bhanwar Singh 2 SBCW NO.1161/2002 Rathore was serving with the respondent Panchayat Raj Department on the post of Gram Sevak. While in service, a criminal case came to be registered against him. He was convicted in the criminal case but the petitioner's late husband preferred an appeal challenging the conviction and sentence. In the meanwhile, the petitioner's husband attained the age of superannuation and stood retired from service w.e.f. 31.7.1996 and the respondents sanctioned provisional pension to him vide PPO No. 401399 RJ dated 1.8.1996 vide Annex.1. Thus, the petitioner's late husband was in receipt of the provisional pension during his life time. However, the petitioner's husband expired on 28.11.1999. The appeal filed by the petitioner's late husband has not been decided and thus the conviction recorded by the trial court in the case has not attained finality. The natural consequence on the death of the accused in a criminal case is that the appeal has to be abated on the death of accused. After the death of the petitioner's husband, the petitioner applied for grant of family pension by submitting an application to the respondent No.3 Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti, Marwar Junction which was forwarded by him to the Joint Director, Pension and Pensionary Welfare Department, Jodhpur vide Annex.3 dated 24.8.2000. The respondent No.3 Vikas Adhikari sought instruction from the respondent No.1 Pension Department 3 SBCW NO.1161/2002 by communication dated 27.12.2000 as to whether the papers for family pension could be prepared and sent for finalisation pending the criminal appeal against the Govt. servant pensioner vide Annex.4. However, the respondent No.1 Pension Department directed respondent No.3 to prepare the papers for family pension and send to the department of Pension, vide order Annex.5. Despite various communications as noticed above, the respondent No.3 did not prepare the pension papers and send to respondent No.1 for finalisation of pension, may be for provisional family pension. Hence this writ petition. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy involved in the instant case stands concluded by a decision of this Court in Smt. Shanti Devi Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., SBCW No.2607/2007 decided on 02.04.2008. In that case, one Shri Srikishan Joshi on attaining the age of superannuation stood retired from Govt. service and was in receipt of provisional pension and expired. Thereafter the widow of Shri Srikishan Joshi was denied the provisional family pension and that came to be challenged before this Court by wife of Shri Srikishan Joshi. In that case, the Govt. servant while serving on the post of UDC in the Education Department stood retired from service on 30.6.92. Before his retirement, a criminal case for misappropriation of the funds was lodged against him 4 SBCW NO.1161/2002 and ultimately that criminal case culminated in conviction by order dated 6.12.1995 and appeal preferred by the Govt. servant against his conviction also came to be dismissed. The Govt. servant filed revision challenging his conviction by the trial court as affirmed by the appellate court. Due to the conviction, the Govt. servant was granted provisional pension. Thereafter on 18.6.2004, the Govt. servant expired and his wife moved for grant of family pension which came to be denied by the respondents and therefore, the writ petition was filed before this Court. While considering the provisions of Rule 99 of the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (for short 'the Rules of 1996' hereinafter), this Court observed as under:- “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 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 5 SBCW NO.1161/2002 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 facts of the instant case are almost identical to that of Smt. Shanti Devi Joshi's case (supra) and therefore, this writ petition also deserves to be allowed in terms of the order passed by this Court in Smt. Shanti Devi Joshi Vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors., SBCW No.2607/2007 decided on 02.04.2008. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The respondent No.3 is directed to prepare and send the papers for provisional family pension in respect of the petitioner to the respondent No.1 Family Pension Department within a period of one month from producing the certified copy of this order and the respondent No.1 shall determine and compute the provisional family pension payable to the petitioner from the date of death of her husband w.e.f. 28.11.1999 and to make payment of the arrears and to continue to pay the provisional 6 SBCW NO.1161/2002 family pension month by month. This exercise be completed by respondent No.1 within three months from the date of receipt of papers from the respondent No.3. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R. PANWAR), J. rp