'Pension Is a Right, Not a Bounty': Rajasthan High Court Recognises ‘Nata Vivah’, Orders 24 Years of Family Pension Arrears

Nata Vivah, a traditional custom of remarriage prevalent in certain communities in Rajasthan, has been formally recognized by the Rajasthan High Court as a valid form of marriage in a significant ruling concerning family pension rights. Justice Ganesh Ram Meena emphasized that such customary unions grant women the same legal standing as other recognized marriages, ensuring that personal and social customs are respected within the framework of service benefits. The court ruled that pension is a fundamental right and "earned property" of an employee rather than a "bounty" given at the government's discretion, and therefore cannot be withheld based on the nature of a marriage recognized by local custom.

The judgment was delivered in response to a petition filed by the widow of a government employee who had been denied family pension and death gratuity for over 24 years. Her husband was appointed as a Patwari in 1989 following a formal selection process. Although his appointment letter described his position as "purely temporary," he had completed more than one year of continuous service before his death in 1990. Despite the state government granting the widow a compassionate appointment—effectively acknowledging her husband's status as a regular employee—authorities later rejected her pension claim by citing the "temporary" nature of his initial appointment. Home Cadre Not a Right, Preference Must Be First to Claim Insider Vacancy: Delhi High Court.

In its detailed analysis, the court examined Rule 268A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951, which mandates that dependents of any government servant are entitled to a family pension if the employee served for more than one year, regardless of whether the appointment was temporary or permanent. The court observed that since the deceased employee was selected through a formal committee, the label of "temporary" in an appointment letter did not strip his dependents of their legal right to death benefits.

The court also addressed the state's objection regarding the 24-year delay in filing the petition, reiterating that pensionary benefits serve as essential "economic security." The bench clarified that a state’s failure to fulfill its statutory obligations, based on reasons contrary to established rules, cannot be used as a justification to penalize a citizen for a delayed filing. 'Wife Not Cooking for Husband Does Not Amount to Cruelty When Both Are Working': Telangana High Court Rejects Divorce Plea.

Ultimately, the Rajasthan High Court ordered the state government to release all arrears of the family pension and death gratuity to the widow. To account for the decades of financial deprivation, the court directed that these payments be made with an interest rate of 9% per annum, calculated from the date the entitlement originally began.

(The above story first appeared on LatestLY on Jan 19, 2026 11:11 AM IST. For more news and updates on politics, world, sports, entertainment and lifestyle, log on to our website latestly.com).