Order : (Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.) 1. The short question involved in this writ petition is, whether the divorced wife of the deceased Government servant is entitled for family pension in accordance with Rule 47 of the Chhattisgarh Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1976 (for short, ‘the Rules of 1976’)? 2. The aforesaid question arises for consideration on the following factual backdrop: - 3. Shri Bhanu Pratap Singh retired from service on 30-6-2012 as Accountant from the office of District Education Officer, Bilaspur / Mungeli and died on 26-1-2013. In his records, name of the petitioner has been shown as nominee in place of respondent No.6, as marriage between deceased Government servant Bhanu Pratap Singh and respondent No.6 has been dissolved by the judgment & decree dated 18-1-2008 by the jurisdictional matrimonial court. 4. Respondent No.6 (divorced wife of the deceased Government servant) after the death of the deceased Government servant, filed writ petition before this Court bearing W.P.(S)No.1346/2013 claiming retiral benefits which was disposed by this Court on 6-5- 2013 directing the duly constituted empowered committee to consider the case of respondent No.6 herein for grant of family pension pursuant to which the duly constituted empowered committee on 27-9-2013 relying upon Note 2 of Form 3 appended to the Rules of 1976, held that wife will include judicially separated wife, therefore, divorced wife is also entitled for family pension under the Rules of 1976. 5. The petitioner herein, who is younger brother of the deceased Government servant and whose name has been shown as nominee in the service records of the deceased Government servant, has filed the instant writ petition questioning the impugned order dated 27-9-2013 (Annexure P-3) stating that respondent No.6 is not entitled for family pension and the order impugned passed by the duly constituted empowered committee is without jurisdiction and without authority of law, as such, it be quashed and further claimed relief that the respondents be directed to pay / grant family pension to him, as he being the brother and nominee of the deceased Government servant is entitled for the same, which respondent No.6 has opposed by filing return stating inter alia that the petitioner is not entitled for family pension and respondent No.6 being the divorced wife, is entitled for family pension. 6. Mr. 6. Mr. Shyam Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that respondent No.6 being the divorced wife is not entitled for family pension in view of the decision rendered by this Court in the matter of Smt. Annapurna Jatvar v. State of Chhattisgarh and others , WPS No.5402/2016, decided on 25-1-2018 affirmed by the Division Bench in WA No.151/2018, decided on 5-7-2021, and thus, the petitioner is entitled for family pension. 7. Mr. Anil Singh Rajput, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.6, would submit that despite respondent No.6 being the divorced wife, family pension has rightly been granted to her by the duly constituted empowered committee holding that she is entitled for family pension and the petitioner is not entitled for family pension. As such, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Sub-rule (8)(ii) of Rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 prescribes that if a deceased Government servant or pensioner leaves behind a widow or widower, the family pension shall become payable to the withdow or widower, failing which to the eligible child. 10.Similarly, sub-rule (12)(a)(i) of Rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 states that as soon as a Government servant has completed one year’s continuous service, he shall give details of his family in Form 3 to the Head of Office. Sub-rule (12)(a)(i) of Rule 47 of the Rules of 1976 and Form 3 appended to Rule 47(12) of the Rules of 1976 are reproduced herein-below: - Sub-rule 12(a)(i) of the Rules of 1976 “47. Contributory family pension.—xxx xxx xxx (12)(a)(i) As soon as a Government servant has completed one year’s continuous service, he shall give details of his family in Form 3 to the Head of Office.” Form 3 appended to Rule 47(12) of the Rules of 1976 “FORM 3 [See Rule 47(12)] Details of family Name of Government servant ……………………… Designation ………………………………………….. Date of birth ………………………………………... Date of appointment ………………………………. Details of the members of my family as on ……… S.No. Name of the members of ‘family’ Date of birth Relationship with other Officer/ Government servant Initials of the Head of Office Remarks (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Date of birth ………………………………………... Date of appointment ………………………………. Details of the members of my family as on ……… S.No. Name of the members of ‘family’ Date of birth Relationship with other Officer/ Government servant Initials of the Head of Office Remarks (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. I hereby undertake to keep the above particulars up-to-date by notifying to the Head of Office any addition or alternation. Place ……………... Dated the ………... ……………… Signature of Government servant Note.— 1. Family for this purpose means:— (a) wife or wives in the case of a male Government servant; (b) husband, in the case of female Government servant; (c) sons below twenty one years of age and unmarried daughters below twenty-four years of age, including such sons or daughters adopted legally before retirement. 2. Wife and husband shall include respectively judicially separated wife and husband. (To be filled in by Head of Office) Details of family: Filled by …………………. Designation ……………… Office …………………….. ……………. Signature of Head of Office Dated ………………………. Designation ………………..” 11. A careful perusal of Note 2 of Form 3 appended to Rule 47(12) of the Rules of 1976 would show that wife and husband shall include respectively judicially separated wife and husband, however, the law making authority has consciously did not include the divorced wife within the meaning of family and only included the judicially separated wife for grant of family pension, as it is well settled law that decree of judicial separation does not change the status of wife, whereas, if decree of divorce is granted, marriage between husband and wife stands dissolved. In this regard, their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhury and another , (2016) 2 SCC 705 have defined the distinction between decree of divorce and decree of judicial separation, and held as under: - “23. In view of the aforesaid pronouncement, it is quite clear that there is a distinction between a decree for divorce and decree of judicial separation; in the former, there is a severance of status and the parties do not remain as husband and wife, whereas in the latter, the relationship between husband and wife continues and the legal relationship continues as it has not been snapped. Thus understood, the finding recorded by the courts below which have been concurred by the High Court that the parties having been judicially separated, the appellant wife has ceased to be an “aggrieved person” is wholly unsustainable.” 12. Thus, it has been authoritatively laid down that in case of decree for divorce, there is a severance of status and the parties do not remain as husband and wife, whereas in case of decree of judicial separation, the relationship between husband and wife continues and the legal relationship continues as it has not been snapped. 13. Furthermore, this Court in Smt. Annapurna Jatvar (supra) has clearly held that upon grant of decree of divorce by the matrimonial court, the matrimonial relationship between the husband and wife comes to an end and the wife ceases to be the wife of the deceased Government servant for all practical purposes and loses her status of wife of the deceased Government servant and there is a severance of status and she is no longer widow of the deceased Government servant. The principle of law laid down in Smt. Annapurna Jatvar (supra) has also been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.151/2018. As such, judicial separation does not terminate marriage and also the status of husband and wife between the parties continues, whereas in case of divorce, once decree of divorce is granted, relationship between husband and wife is lost and marriage ceases to be in existence and the parties are no more husband and wife. 14. Coming to the facts of the case, Note 2 of Form 3 appended to Rule 47(12) of the Rules of 1976 only refers to judicially separated wife, who is entitled for family pension, and husband and it does not include divorced wife and as such, respondent No.6 being the divorced wife of the deceased Government servant, is not entitled for family pension, as she is not included in Note 2 of Form 3 appended to Rule 47(12) of the Rules of 1976. Thus, a divorced wife will not come within the meaning of sub-rule (8)(ii) of Rule 47 read with Note 2 of Form 3 appended to Rule 47(12) of the Rules of 1976. Therefore, respondent No.6 being the divorced wife is not entitled for the benefit of family pension under the Rules of 1976. Thus, a divorced wife will not come within the meaning of sub-rule (8)(ii) of Rule 47 read with Note 2 of Form 3 appended to Rule 47(12) of the Rules of 1976. Therefore, respondent No.6 being the divorced wife is not entitled for the benefit of family pension under the Rules of 1976. While taking this view, I am supported by the decision of the M.P. High Court in the matter of Saraswati Pandey v. Secretary, State of M.P. and another , 2004 SCC OnLine MP 71 and that of the Rajasthan High Court in the matter of The State of Rajasthan and others v. Smt. Urmila Singh and another, 2012 SCC OnLine Raj 1013. 15. It has now been contended on behalf of respondent No.6 that the petitioner being the brother of the deceased Government servant is also not entitled for family pension on account of death of his brother i.e. the deceased Government servant, however, this point has not been decided by the empowered committee in favour of the petitioner by granting family pension and this issue is premature at this stage, and the committee has only decided the entitlement of respondent No.6. 16. In that view of the matter, it is open to the competent authority to take decision on the petitioner’s application, if any, in accordance with law, as this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner for family pension and it is for the competent authority to decide the same on the representation, if any, made by the petitioner, after hearing all the concerned. 17. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 27-9-2013 (Annexure P-3) is quashed and the writ petition is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above leaving the parties to bear their own cost(s).