A widow wins her 24-year-long battle as Rajasthan High Court orders the government to pay family pension, death gratuity, and interest for her late husband’s temporary government service. Court rules delay cannot deny rightful benefits to dependents.
Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has ruled in favor of a widow who had been denied family pension and death gratuity for over two decades following the death of her husband, who was appointed as a Lower Division Clerk in 1989.
The case, filed in 2014, finally concluded on September 4, 2025, with the High Court directing the government to grant all pending benefits along with interest for the delay.
The petitioner’s late husband had been appointed on September 26, 1989, and sadly passed away just over a year later on October 29, 1990.
ALSO READ: Hyderabad Police File Case Against Social Media Account for Defaming Former CJI NV Ramana
Although his appointment letter stated that he was appointed “purely on a temporary basis,” the appointment process followed by the government was similar to that of a regular employee, including recommendations by the selection committee.
After his death, the government treated his position as substantive for the purpose of granting a compassionate appointment under the Rajasthan Compassionate Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Government Servants Rules, 1975.
However, the widow was denied family pension and death gratuity, as the appointment letter mentioned it was temporary. Feeling aggrieved, she filed a writ petition in the Rajasthan High Court nearly 24 years later.
Justice Anand Sharma of the Rajasthan High Court, in Writ Petition No. 4901/2014, observed that
“on bare reading of Rule 268A of the Rules of 1951 would make it clear that the dependents of any Government servant whether appointed on temporary or permanent basis, but worked for more than one year, are entitled for family pension.”
The Court noted that her late husband had undergone the proper process for appointment, including facing the selection committee, and only after their recommendation was the benefit of appointment extended to him.
The Court emphasized,
“Thus, the process adopted for his appointment was similar to the process of appointment of substantive employees. Therefore, benefits, which are otherwise admissible to substantive employees, cannot be denied to the dependents of the deceased Government servant only for the reason that term, ‘purely on temporary basis’ has been used in the appointment letter, more so, when Rule 268A of the Rules of 1951 mandates that dependents of Government servants irrespective of the fact that he was appointed on temporary or permanent basis, if worked for more than one year, shall be entitled for family pension.”
The government had argued that the petition was filed after a long delay of 24 years.
The Court rejected this objection, stating,
“as per settled law, pension is not a bounty and it is the right of the employee or his/her dependents.”
Further, it held,
“The question of limitation or delay cannot be raised by the Government in order to deny legitimate benefits to the Government servant or his/her dependents. Hence, objections raised by learned counsels for the respondents in this regard is rejected.”
The Court referred to the precedent of Union of India & Others Vs. Smt. Kaushlaya & Another, which confirmed that family pension and related benefits are not denied even to temporary employees.
ALSO READ: Rs 5 Lakh Fine on Drishti IAS: CCPA Exposes Misleading UPSC Selection Claims for 2022
The Court noted,
“There is no denial of the fact that under the Rules of 1972, a person holding a pensionary post in substantive capacity, if dies in harness, in terms of Rule 54, is entitled to family pension. As noticed above, temporary employees have also been provided the same benefit by dispensing with the condition of holding pensionary post on substantive capacity under the Central Government.”
It further clarified,
“Therefore, Rule 54 of the Rules, 1972 operates in the case of temporary employees of the Central Government also, which, undoubtedly, the deceased incumbent Patwari Ram was. Rules 54(2) envisages that without prejudiced to the provisions contained in Sub-rule (3), where a Government servant dies after completion of one year of continuous service or after retirement from service and on the date of death in receipt of pension, the family of the deceased shall be entitled to family pension under the Rules of 1964. The amount shall be determined in accordance with the table given under it. Apparently, there is no dispute about the fact that the deceased Patwari Ram died after completion of one year of continuous service in temporary status.”
The Court concluded,
“In that view of the matter, shorn of all other details with which we are not concerned, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion that respondent original applicant was entitled to family pension in terms of Rule 54(2) of the Rules, 1972, benefit of which has been extended to temporary employees by dispensing with the condition that the incumbent must be holding pensionary post in substantive capacity.”
Finally, the Rajasthan High Court ordered the government to pay the widow all pending benefits of family pension, death gratuity, and interest for the delay, holding,
“It appears that there is no justified reason for denying family pension, death gratuity etc. to the petitioner (wife) and the delay caused by the respondents (government) for the reasons which are contrary to the rules cannot be appreciated and the respondents (government) are also held liable to pay interest for the delay caused in granting benefit of family pension, death gratuity etc. to the petitioner (wife).”
This judgment sets an important precedent for dependents of government employees appointed on a temporary basis, affirming that entitlement to family pension and gratuity is a right and not a mere privilege, regardless of delays in filing claims.
Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Social Media
