Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Rajasthan Single Bench of Justice Farjand Ali, while directing the Advocate General to place before the State the need to amend the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 so that provisions on nomination, dissolution of marriage and entitlement are clear and unambiguous, dismissed a writ petition seeking release of family pension. The Bench found that rival claims by the petitioner and another claimant to be the deceased employee’s legally wedded spouse raise disputed questions of marital status and succession that cannot be tried in writ jurisdiction, and left the parties free to file a civil suit for declaration of rights and consequential relief over pensionary benefits, with an expectation of weekly listing and expeditious disposal.

The writ petition was instituted by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking release of family pension after the death of a retired employee of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation. The petitioner claimed to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee, who had superannuated from service on 30.09.2000 and was in receipt of pension under a Pension Payment Order issued in October 2000. Upon his death in December 2013, the petitioner applied for grant of family pension as the nominated beneficiary reflected in the pension records.

Also Read: Second SLP Bar Applies After Earlier SLP Dismissal And Failed High Court Review Without Express Liberty Under Article 136: Supreme Court

An objection was raised by another woman, who asserted that she was the legally wedded wife of the deceased and relied upon earlier nomination records and other documents. In view of the competing claims, the Corporation directed the claimants to obtain a succession certificate. The application filed by the rival claimant before the civil court was dismissed, yet the family pension was not released, leading to the present writ petition.

The petitioner contended that nomination under the pension rules and dismissal of the civil application conclusively established her entitlement, and that continued withholding of pension was arbitrary and violative of her right to livelihood. The respondents opposed the petition on the ground that there existed a serious dispute regarding marital status, involving rival claims based on different service records and personal law considerations, which could not be resolved in writ jurisdiction.

The Court observed that the record disclosed competing claims by two women, each asserting herself to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and noted that “the record is conspicuously silent and bereft of any conclusive document that may decisively establish which of the two, if any, is the lawful spouse of the deceased.” It recorded that earlier nomination documents mentioned one claimant, while the Pension Payment Order reflected the other, giving rise to a serious factual dispute.

The Court stated that “neither under Hindu personal law nor under the service jurisprudence applicable to government employees is there any concept recognising the status of a ‘first wife’ or ‘second wife’ during the subsistence of a valid marriage.” It noted that entitlement to family pension necessarily depends on proof that the claimant was the legally wedded spouse at the time of death, and “absent this essential condition, no person can lay a lawful claim to the pensionary benefits flowing from the service of the deceased employee.”

After examining the Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996, the Court recorded that nomination does not create proprietary rights and that “a nominee does not step into the shoes of a legal heir.” It further observed that “the beneficial interest in the estate of a deceased must devolve strictly in accordance with the law of natural succession, irrespective of in whose favour the nomination stands.”

The Court stated that “writ of mandamus derived from the Latin expression “we command” is confined strictly to ensuring that a public authority performs a statutory or public duty. It does not permit this Court, while exercising its original writ jurisdiction, to embark upon an inquiry into disputed questions of fact, particularly those touching upon marital status, legitimacy, succession, or personal relationships.”

Also Read: Three-Year BPE Degree Treated As Equivalent To One-Year B.P.Ed For Physical Training Instructor; Rejection Based On Short-Form Nomenclature A Misnomer: Rajasthan High Court

The Court held that “this Court finds no reason to exercise its writ jurisdiction in the present matter,” and declined to issue a writ of mandamus for release of family pension. It directed that “the parties are left at liberty to avail the remedy of a civil suit before the competent court for establishing their rights of succession and seeking appropriate relief concerning the estate of the deceased which may include the pensionary and other retiral benefits.”

“If such a suit be filed, the learned Trial Court is expected to list the matter on a weekly basis, bearing in mind the age of the parties, and to make every endeavour to decide it expeditiously, preferably within one year of its institution.” The writ petition was dismissed, and “pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Arpit Bhoot, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Sunil Purohit, Advocate; Mr. Prashant Tatia, Advocate

Case Title: Smt. Anand Kanwar v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: RJ-JD:46547
Case Number: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12663/2016
Bench: Justice Farjand Ali