http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: LAXMI KUNWAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF RAJASTHAN

DATE OF JUDGMENT11/12/1992

BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) BENCH: KULDIP SINGH (J) KASLIWAL, N.M. (J)

CITATION:  1994 SCC  Supl.  (1) 303 1993 SCALE  (1)91

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                ORDER 1.Tej Dan, late husband of the petitioner was working  as patwari  in  the  service of the  State  of  Rajasthan.   He retired from service on June 30, 1980.  After his retirement he  married  the petitioner Laxmi Kunwar on March  8,  1987. Shortly  thereafter he died.  The Rajasthan  Government  has denied  family pension to the petitioner on the ground  that Tej  Dan  married her after retirement from service  and  as such  under  the  rules she is not entitled  to  the  family pension.  This petition under Article 32 is by Laxmi  Kunwar the  widow  of  Tej Dan seeking  a  mandamus  directing  the respondents to grant family pension to her. 2.The State of Rajasthan, in the counter-affidavit  filed before this Court, has taken the following stand:               "The  family of Shri Tej Dan was  entitled  to               pension  by  virtue of Rule 268-A to  268D  of               Chapter XXVIII-A of (New Family Pension Rules)               Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951.  Rules 268-A, B               and D are annexed hereto and marked Annexure A               is  true  and correct copy  of  the  aforesaid               Rules.   It is respectfully submitted that  in               view  of  existing  Rules  the  definition  of               family  does not take into its sweep  wife  or               husband  getting married after the  retirement               or  even  children legally adopted  after  the               retirement.   In  view of  the  aforesaid  the               petitioner  is not entitled to family  pension               because she admittedly got married to Tej Dan,               patwari  after he retired from the service  of               the State of Rajasthan."               Rule  268-D  which defines the  family  is  as               under:               "(1)  ’Family’,  for  the  purposes  of   this               chapter, will include the following  relations               of the officer:               (a)   Wife, in the case of male officer;

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

             (b)   husband,   in  the  case  of  a   female               officer;               (c)   minor sons; and               (d)   unmarried minor daughters.               304               Note               (1)(c)  and (d) will include children  adopted               legally before retirement.               (2)Marriage  after retirement will  not  be               recognised for the purposes of this rule.               (3) *    *    *    *     * 3.This  Court in Smt Bhagwanti v. Union of India’ had  an occasion to deal with identical situation under the  Central Services  Rules  which  are pari-materia  to  the  Rajasthan Rules.   This  Court  struck down part  of  the  rule  which excluded  the marriage after retirement from the  definition of  "Family".   We  adopt the reasoning  of  this  Court  in Bhagwanti  case1  and  hold  that  Note  2  to  Rule   268-D reproduced  above  is  arbitrary and  as  such  ultra  vires Article  14  of the Constitution of India.   We,  therefore, allow  the petition, direct the respondents to consider  the case of the petitioner for grant of family pension  ignoring Note 2 to Rule 268-D which we have struck down.  The  family pension be finalised within three months from today, All the arrears  of  the  pension shall be paid  to  the  petitioner within one month thereafter.  No costs.