- (1.) AT the request of learned counsel for the parties, arguments were heard and special appeal is being disposed off finally.
(2.) PETITIONERS/Respondents No. 1 and 2 preferred writ petition before Single Bench with the prayer that the respondents/appellants be directed to grant benefit of family pension in favour of the petitioners and also to consider the case of Petitioner No. 1, Smt. Urmila Singh for appointment on the compassionate ground on a suitable post as per provisions of Rajasthan Recruitment of Dependants of Government Servant's Dying While in Government Service Rules, 1996. The writ petition was contested by the respondents by filing written reply. After considering the submissions of parties, learned Single Judge vide order dated 06.09.2011, allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents/appellants to compute the retiral dues and all other benefits, which the family of the deceased is entitled for under law. Submission of learned counsel for the appellants is that Petitioner No. 1, Smt. Urmila Singh is a divorced wife, therefore, she was not entitled to family pension in view of Rule 66(1)(b) of the Rajasthan Civil Services(Pension) Rules, 1996(for short 'the Rules of 1996'), therefore, order passed by the Single Bench to that extent is liable to be set aside. No other submission has been advanced on behalf of the appellants. Learned counsel for the respondents fairly and frankly admitted the position of law in this regard and submitted that he does not press the writ petition on behalf of Petitioner No. 1, Smt. Urmila Singh and family pension be restricted to the extent of Petitioner No. 2, Kumari Parishrama D/o. Late Shri Tara Chand. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. From the record, it appears that so far prayer relating to compassionate appointment is concerned, the same was not pressed on behalf of Petitioner No. 1, Smt. Urmila Singh, by her counsel and the said fact has not been disputed by him before us also. So far as grant of family pension is concerned, Rule 66(1)(b) of the Rules of 1996 makes it clear that family for the purpose of these rules will include a judicially separated wife or husband, such separation not being granted on the ground of adultery. The divorced wife has not been included in the definition of family for the purpose of grant of family pension. The only submission of the appellants is in respect of Respondent No. 1, Smt. Urmila Singh, that she is not entitled to family pension.
(3.) AS agreed by the parties, it is directed that order passed by the Single Bench be treated as modified to the extent that the respondents(present appellants) will compute retiral dues and all other benefits, which the Petitioner No. 2/Respondent No. 2, Kumari Parishrama D/o. Late Shri Tara Chand is entitled for under law and after its due computation, the same will be paid to her along with interest @ 9% per annum in terms of Rule 89 of the Rules of 1996 from the date it became due till its actual payment. With the above modification in the order passed by the Single Bench, special appeal stands disposed off. Stay application also stands disposed off. As prayed by learned counsel for the appellants, one month's time is allowed to the appellants to comply with the order. ;