Jaipur: Rajasthan High Court has stayed the release of a deceased govt doctor’s retirement benefits to his father or anyone else amid a dispute over entitlement between his widow and in-laws.The single bench of Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand also issued notices to the state govt’s principal secretary, medical and health, the concerned director, Tonk chief medical and health officer and five others, seeking their responses to a petition filed by the doctor’s widow, Rekha Chaudhary. The notices are returnable by Nov 23.In its Oct 30 interim order, the court directed that the benefits should not be released to anyone pending further proceedings. Chaudhary, who has a son and a daughter, has sought family pension, other terminal benefits and compassionate appointment, citing the need to support her children after her husband’s death.According to the petition, proceedings for dissolution of marriage between Chaudhary and Dr Surjeet Singh Gangwal had been pending before a Tonk court since 2024. Gangwal, a govt doctor, died in service on May 2, 2026.The petitioner alleged that after Gangwal’s death, her father-in-law, Sitaram Singh Gangwal, claimed the retirement benefits and that the department was processing the release of 90% of the state insurance (SI) amount in his favour.The petition also stated that Chaudhary and her daughter had been receiving Rs 12,000 as maintenance before her husband’s death, but the payment stopped thereafter. She further alleged that her minor son was being kept by her in-laws against her wishes.Her counsel, Laxmikant Sharma, argued that the widow and children had a statutory claim to the deceased employee’s family benefits and that a nomination in favour of another person could not, by itself, override the rights of legal heirs.The petitioner has sought family pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity (DCRG), General Provident Fund (GPF), SI, leave encashment, and compassionate appointment. She also argued that her retired father-in-law did not need the benefits, which should instead be made available to her and her children.The high court has not decided the rival claims on merits and will consider them after receiving the authorities’ responses.
