1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 6309/2006 (Mrs. Sukla Banerjee Vs. Indian Air Force and Ors.) Date of Order : 28/03/2007 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.R.PANWAR Mr. P.S.Bhati for the petitioner. Mr. Kuldeep Mathur for the respondents. BY THE COURT:- By the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks following reliefs :- "A. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to withhold the pensionary benefits of respondent No.4 until he undertakes to give adequate share for his wife and daughter. B. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to restore all the benefits of a serviceman/ ex-serviceman's, spouse and daughter. C. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to not to process the claim of pension of respondent No.4 until proper signatures and photograph of his lawfully wedded wife are there. D. By an appropriate writ, order or direction, the respondents may kindly be directed to give the maintenance amount under Section 92 of the Air Force 2 Act from 1.1.2005 to 30.6.2005." Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner's husband Sergeant is due to retire on 31.3.2007. The petitioner claims that on the pension papers of her husband, her photograph has not been affixed by her husband respondent No.4 despite the request by Air Force Authorities. A reply to the writ petition has been filed by the respondents stating that the respondent department requested Sergeant T.K.Banerjee to affix his own photo along with photo of his wife for the purpose of pension etc. but he declined to affix. There is no provision compelling a serving person to affix the photographs of his wife or any one else. The right to pension is to the person who has served in the Indian Air Force i.e. respondent No.4, and the respondent No.4 is not aggrieved by any action of the respondents No. 1 to 3, whereas, by the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction that the pensionary benefits of respondent No.4 may be withheld. Such a direction cannot be given. Right to pension is of the employee who served in the respondent department. So far as family pension is concerned, it only arises after the death of the pensioner employee. 3 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are certain benefits which have not been granted to the petitioner. There is nothing on record to suggest entitlement of the petitioner to such benefits as also denial by the respondents. In the circumstances, therefore, no relief can be granted as prayed for. In the result, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. (H.R.PANWAR),J. rp