Order : (DINESH MEHTA, J.) 1. The petitioners have approached this Court with a grievance that the respondents are not paying them the terminal dues, including pension etc. which has accrued to them on account of death of Dr. Chandan Choudhary (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Government servant’) being husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 who has passed away on 06.03.2023. 2. Mr. Tanuj Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3 submitted that death of the Government servant occurred under suspicious circumstances and father of the Government servant has leveled allegation of murder upon the petitioner No.1 (wife of the Government servant). He submitted that the case for retiral/terminal dues was not processed in light of provision contained in Rule 73 of Rajasthan Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1996’). 3. On 08.01.2025, Mr. Deepak Choudhary, learned Additional Advocate General cum Public Prosecutor was directed to appear in this matter and apprise the Court about the status of the FIR lodged by father of the Government servant. He was also asked to ascertain whether the daughter of the Government servant is living with her paternal grandparents or mother/maternal grandparents. 4. In furtherance of the direction so issued, learned Additional Advocate General cum Public Prosecutor has produced a report dated 20.01.2025 given by the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Mandore, Jodhpur (East), inter-alia, stating that investigation is under way and that the petitioner No.2 – Janvi Choudhary, the daughter of the Government servant is living with her mother (petitioner No.1) and maternal grandparents at-21, Godaro Ka Bas, Vishnu Nagar, Digadi Kala Police Station Banad, Jodhpur (East). 5. Mr. Godara, learned counsel for the petitioners argued that respondents’ action is illegal and arbitrary, inasmuch as even charge-sheet has not been filed against the petitioner No.1. He alternatively prayed that at least half of the benefits be given to the petitioner No.2 in the meantime. 6. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioners also relied upon Rule 69 of the Rules of 1996, which reads thus:- “ 69. Family pension not payable to more than one member at the same time (i) Except as provided in rule 68, the family pension shall not be payable to more than one member of the family at the same time. Family pension not payable to more than one member at the same time (i) Except as provided in rule 68, the family pension shall not be payable to more than one member of the family at the same time. (ii) If a deceased Government servant or pensioner leaves behind a widow or widower, the family pension shall become payable to the widow or widower, failing which to the eligible child. (iii) Family pension to the children shall be payable in the order of their birth and the younger of them will not be eligible for family pension unless the elder next above him/her has become ineligible for the grant of family pension.” 7. Mr. Pareek, learned counsel for the Pension Department submitted that since the petitioner No.1 – wife of the Government servant is accused of murdering her husband, she cannot be given any pensionary benefits or any other retiral/terminal dues. He added that it is only the petitioner No.2 – daughter of the Government servant, who can get the same, but such amount cannot exceed half of the total payable amount, as the deceased Government servant has left behind him two dependents –petitioner No.1 being his wife and petitioner No.2 being his daughter. 8. For such purpose, Mr. Pareek relied upon Rule 68 of the Rules of 1996 which reads thus:- “ 68. Order of Allotment- (a) (i) Where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid in equal shares. (ii) On the death of a widow, her share of the family pension shall become payable to her eligible child: Provided that if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of the family pension shall not lapse but shall be payable to the other widows in equal shares, or if there is only one such other widow, in full, to her. (b) Where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from another wife who is not alive, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of the Government servant or pensioner. Provided that on the share or shares of family pension payable to such a child or children or to a widow or widows ceasing to be payable, such share or shares shall not lapse, but shall be payable to the other widow or widows and/or to other child or children otherwise eligible, in equal shares or if there is only one widow or child, in full, to such widow or child. (c) Where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from a divorced wife or wives the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received at the time of the death of the Government servant or pensioner had she not been so divorced. Provided that on the share or shares of family pension payable to such a child or children or to a widow or widows ceasing to be payable, such share or shares shall not lapse, but shall be payable to the other widow or widows and/or to other child or children otherwise eligible, in equal shares or if there is only one widow or child, in full, to such widow or child. (d) Where the family pension is payable to twin children it shall be paid to such children in equal shares: Provided that when one such child ceases to be eligible his/her share shall revert to the other child and when both of them ceases to be eligible the family pension shall be payable to the next eligible single child/twin children. (e) Where the family pension is payable to parent it shall be paid first to the mother and after her death it shall be payable to the father.” 9. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. Indisputably, investigation is under way and no charge-sheet has yet been filed against the petitioner No.1 or anyone else. 11. Rule 73 of the Rules of 1996 reads thus:- “ 73. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 10. Indisputably, investigation is under way and no charge-sheet has yet been filed against the petitioner No.1 or anyone else. 11. Rule 73 of the Rules of 1996 reads thus:- “ 73. Suspension of family pension if the recipient is charged with the offence of murdering the Government servant, etc.- (a) If a person, who in the event of death of a Government servant while in service, is eligible to receive family pension under this rule, is charged with the offence of murdering the Government servant or for abetting in the commission of such an offense, the claim of such a person, including other eligible member or members of the family to receive the family pension, shall remain suspended till the conclusion of the criminal proceedings instituted against him. (b) If on the conclusion of the criminal proceedings referred to in clause (a), the person concerned - (i) is convicted for the murder or abetting in the murder of the Government servant, such a person shall be debarred from receiving the family pension which shall be payable to other eligible member of the family, from the date of death of the Government servant, (ii) is acquitted of the charge of murder or abetting in the murder of the Government servant, the family pension shall be payable to such a person from the date of death of the Government servant. (c) The provisions of clause (a) and clause (b) shall also apply to the family pension becoming payable on the death of a Government servant after his retirement.” 12. Rule 73 of the Rules of 1996 provides that the claim for family pension shall be suspended in case of death of a Government servant while in service, on account of commission of offence of murder or abetting the commission of such offence and the concerned family member, eligible for receiving the family pension is accused of such offence. 13. True it is that, Rule 73 of the Rules of 1996 creates an embargo upon the rights of family member(s) to claim pension, but the same is confined to the person who is responsible/accused for committing or abetting murder of the Government servant. 14. 13. True it is that, Rule 73 of the Rules of 1996 creates an embargo upon the rights of family member(s) to claim pension, but the same is confined to the person who is responsible/accused for committing or abetting murder of the Government servant. 14. Without making any observation about the involvement or otherwise of petitioner No.1 in the death of the Government servant, this Court is of the view that even if the charge against the petitioner No.1 is found proved, then also, the State Government cannot deprive the petitioner No.2 of her right to get terminal dues and other pensionary benefits including family pension. 15. According to this Court, denial of pension to the petitioner No.1 may be justified as an FIR [being FIR No.80/2023, registered at Police Station Banad, District Jodhpur City (East)] for the offence under section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 is pending against her. But in the guise of pendency of investigation, the rights of petitioner No.2 cannot be thwarted altogether. 16. So far as Rule 68 of the Rules of 1996 is concerned, the same operates in entirely different field and fact situation - when the deceased Government servant has left behind him more than one widows or one being widow and other being child or children of the first or second widow or one being widow and other being child or children from divorced wife or wives. 17. In the instant case, facts are entirely different – the claimants for family pension are wife (petitioner No.1) and daughter (petitioner No.2) of the deceased Government servant. 18. Rule 69 of the Rules of 1996 shall come into play in the present case. Since the family pension is not payable to the widow, it shall be paid to the eligible child, by virtue of clause (ii) of Rule 69 of the Rules of 1996. To elucidate further – there are two claimants for pension - one being the wife and other being the daughter of the deceased Government servant. Since the petitioner No.1 is being considered ineligible, the pension is required to be paid to the child – petitioner No.2. 19. Upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no impediment in giving terminal/retiral dues to petitioner No.2. Since the petitioner No.1 is being considered ineligible, the pension is required to be paid to the child – petitioner No.2. 19. Upon consideration of the material available on record, this Court is of the considered view that there is no impediment in giving terminal/retiral dues to petitioner No.2. The respondents cannot outrightly stop the payment of dues which have arisen to the family members on account of untimely demise of the Government servant while in harness. 20. The present writ petition is, therefore, allowed. 21. The respondents are directed to give all terminal and retiral dues on account of death of the Government servant within a period of eight weeks from today. 22. So far as gratuity amount and other amount which is payable to the dependents of the deceased Government servant is concerned, the respondent No.3 and/or respondent No.4 shall prepare an autorenewable FDR in some nationalized bank in the name of petitioner No.2 and handover the same to her maternal grandfather – Mr. Devaram. 23. So far as family pension is concerned, the same shall be paid in the account of petitioner No.2, to be opened under the guardianship of Mr. Devaram (maternal grandfather of the petitioner No.2). It will be required of said Devaram to use such amount for upbringing, education and other necessities, which are in the best interest of petitioner No.2 as a custodial guardian. 24. If there is any saving from the monthly pension, it shall be required of Mr. Devaram to get the amount deposited in FDR in the name of the petitioner No.2 on an year to year basis. 25. In case of any unlikely event of maternal grandfather of petitioner No.2 passing away, it will be open for petitioner No.1 or petitioner No.2 to apply for the appropriate directions before the Joint Director, Pension & Pensioners Welfare Department, Jodhpur Division, who shall in his wisdom pass appropriate orders keeping the spirit of this order and to meet the ends of justice. 26. In case, the petitioner No.1 is not found guilty or is acquitted of the charges, she shall be free to move an application before the Joint Director, Pension & Pensioners Welfare Department, Jodhpur Division for passing appropriate orders as there shall be no applicability of Rule 73 of the Rules of 1996. 27. 26. In case, the petitioner No.1 is not found guilty or is acquitted of the charges, she shall be free to move an application before the Joint Director, Pension & Pensioners Welfare Department, Jodhpur Division for passing appropriate orders as there shall be no applicability of Rule 73 of the Rules of 1996. 27. The respondent No.3 to prepare requisite pension papers and send the same to the respondent No.4 within a period of four weeks from today. 28. The stay application also stands disposed of, accordingly.