Allowed

Subani Bano v. the State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan HC18 Aug 2022CW/11728/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition, theHigh Court allowed the petitioner's claim for family pension. The court directed the respondent Department to issue the pension order based on the service record's date of birth, noting that the discrepancy existed prior to death and provisional pension was already granted. The petitioner is also entitled to arrears.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondent Department to issue the family pension order within two months and to pay the petitioner the arrears of family pension.

Subani Bano Vs the State of Rajasthan — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2022)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 11728/2018

¶3

Smt. Subani Bano W/o Late Saman Khan, Aged About 68 Years, R/o Village- Post - Chhoti Chhapri, Didwana, Nagaur.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Rajasthan, through Secretary, Department of Home, Government of Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.

¶7

The Director General of Police, Police Head Quarters, Jaipur.

¶8

The Superintendent of Police, Pali.

¶9

The Director, Pension And Pensioners Welfare Department, Jaipur.

¶10

----Respondents

¶11

For Petitioner(s)	: Mr. Rajak Khan Haidar
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ravi Panwar, AGC
	Ms. Vandana Bhansali, AGC with
	Ms. Anamika Vishnoi

¶12

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA

¶13

Order

¶14

18/08/2022

¶15

The present writ petition has been preferred with a prayer for grant of family pension to the petitioner, who is the wife of the deceased Saman Khan, who was an employee of the respondent Department.

¶16

The case of the petitioner is that her husband was appointed with the Police Department in the year 1976 and he retired on 30.04.1999. After his retirement, he was granted the provisional pension and the same was continued to be granted to him till his date of death i.e. 02.05.2015. After his death, the petitioner

¶17

(2 of 4)

¶18

[CW-11728/2018]

¶19

applied for the family pension vide letter dated 05.01.2016, which was forwarded to the pension Department and the same was returned with an objection vide letter dated 20.04.2016. In pursuance to the objection raised by the pension Department, the petitioner was directed to submit relevant documents pertaining to the date of birth of Saman Khan namely, his VIII pass School certificate and original Army Service certificate. As the same were not received, the family pension to the petitioner was not released.

¶20

Per contra, the case of the respondents is that there was a discrepancy in the date of birth of the deceased employee as recorded in the service record and as recorded in the army record. In the service record of the Department, the date of birth of the deceased employee was recorded to be 22.10.1946 whereas in the Army record, the same was recorded as 22.10.1940. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that just because of such discrepancy, earlier too, only provisional pension was being granted to the deceased employee and for the same reason, now the family pension could not be released to the petitioner. Learned counsel submitted that although called upon, the petitioner did not submit the relevant documents and therefore, the said discrepancy could not be settled.

¶21

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶22

A perusal of the record makes it clear that the discrepancy regarding the date of birth of the deceased employee in the two records did exist prior to his death and because of the said discrepancy only, the provisional pension was being granted to him. In the provisional pension order of the deceased employee

¶23

(3 of 4)

¶24

[CW-11728/2018]

¶25

released in his favour after his retirement, the date of birth is mentioned to be 22.10.1946 (Annex.-2) and on the basis of the said date of birth only, the earlier PPO was issued. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is entitled to the family pension after the death of her husband. The said family pension cannot be denied to her on the basis of the discrepancy in the date of birth of the deceased employee who himself was being granted the provisional pension. It is also clear on record that all the documents as called upon from the petitioner had already been forwarded and were available with the Department at the time when the earlier PPO was issued in his favour after his retirement. For the purposes of family pension too, the said documents would only be the ground of consideration for release of the pension order. The respondent Department cannot, now at this stage, dispute either the entitlement of the petitioner or the grant of the family pension to her. It is admitted on record that in the service record of the deceased employee, the date of birth was entered as 22.10.1946 and the earlier pension order was issued relying upon the said date of birth only. Therefore, there is no impediment with the respondent Department to act upon the application of the petitioner considering the said date of birth only which was not disputed by it till the date of retirement of the employee. It is also admitted on record that during the complete service tenure of the employee, no dispute regarding his date of birth as recorded in the service record was ever raised nor any explanation was called from him till that date.

¶26

Therefore, it is directed that the date of birth as recorded in the service record i.e. 22.10.1946 be taken into consideration by the respondent Department and the family pension order in favour

¶27

(4 of 4)

¶28

[CW-11728/2018]

¶29

of the petitioner be issued, after completion of all the necessary requirements. The said exercise be completed by the respondents within a period of two months from today. It is made clear that the petitioner would also be entitled to the arrears of the family pension payable to her in terms of law.

¶30

With the above observations, the present writ petition is allowed.

¶31

All the pending applications stand disposed of.

¶32

(REKHA BORANA),J

¶33

86-Sachin/-

Subani Bano v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Subani Bano v. the State of Rajasthan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manroop Singh Vs State of Rajasthan

Prem Chand Sharma Vs State of Raj. and Ors.

Maksood Ahmed Vs State and Ors.

Aam Beema Seva Nivratt Karm. Samiti, Vs National Insurance Com.and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Khatik Vs State of Rajasthan

Dr. Dinesh Charan Vs the State of Rajasthan