IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2111 of 2005 GEETANJALI KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 04/ 14.12.2009 I.A. No. 5741 of 2005 has been filed by one Pushpanjali Kumari, wife of Ranjeet Kumar for adding her as a respondent to the present proceedings being one of the daughters of the deceased employee Late Bhagwan Prasad Singh. I.A. No. 5741 of 2005 is allowed and Pushpanjali Kumari is impleaded as respondent 8 to the writ petition. The facts are indisputed. Late Bhagwan Prasad Singh died in harness while serving on the post of Assistant Research Officer with the Sugarcane Development Department on 4.10.2003. It is also an admitted position that Late Bhagwan Prasad Singh had two wives. The respondent no. 7 is a son born from the first wedlock. On death of his first wife, namely, Parwati Devi, Late Bhagwan Prasad Singh got married to one Smt. Rajmani Devi. Three daughters were born from the second marriage, namely, Priyanjali Kumari who unfortunately committed suicide and is no more alive, the newly added respondent Pushpanjali Kumari and the present petitioner Geetanjali Kumari. Both the wives 2 predeceased Bhagwan Prasad Singh. This writ petition was filed by the petitioner being the minor daughter of Late Bhagwan Prasad Singh under the guardianship of one Mahendra Prasad Singh stated to be her maternal uncle, seeking a direction to the respondents for making the payment of the entire retiral dues admissible to the father of the petitioner together with admissible interest. A counter affidavit was filed on behalf of the State and its authorities and at Annexure-E of the said counter affidavit is a letter of the Deputy Director, Sugarcane Development Department, Government of Bihar, directing the respondent no. 7, namely, Sunil Kumar, son of the deceased employee, born from the first marriage, to file a succession certificate. The respondent no. 7 had filed his claim enclosing the geneology issued by the Circle Officer of the area. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner invites the attention of this Court to a circular of the Finance Department dated 6.9.1996 placed at Annexure-A in which, inter alia, has been mentioned that even in case of there being two living wives, the retiral benefits are to be divided between them in equal proportion. It is, however, further mentioned that the second wife would not be entitled to any family pension. 3 I have heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and Mr. Ashok Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no. 7 who also files his appearance for the newly added respondent no. 8 namely, Pushpanjali Kumari and considered materials on record. The facts are not in dispute that whereas the respondent no. 7 Sunil Kumar is the only son born from the first marriage, the petitioner and Smt. Pushpanjali Kumari are the two daughters born and living from the second marriage. Thus the claim advanced by the petitioner and the respondent nos. 7 and 8 have to be tested in the backdrop of the Circular on the issue. One aspect is manifest from reading of the Circular placed at Annexure-A that the volume of retiral benefits are to be divided equally between the two wives, if alive and living but with rider that it is only the first wife who would be entitled to family pension. Admittedly position is that none of the wives are alive. Thus in the light of the intendment flowing from the Circular dated 6.9.1996 (Annexure-A ) the entire amount of the admissible retiral benefits together with admissible interest is to be calculated and divided into two equal parts. One part meant for children born from the first 4 marriage and the other for children born fro the second marriage. Having held as such, I direct the petitioner, the respondent no. 7 and respondent no. 8 to present themselves before the Director, Agriculture, Government of Bihar, respondent no. 3, together with copy of this order whereupon he shall summarize and re-calculate the entire amount admissible to Late Bhagwan Singh towards his gratuity, provident fund, leave encashment, group insurance or any other dues together with upto date admissible interest and thereafter divide the total amount into two equal halves each. The respondent no. 7 would be entitled to 50 per cent of the dues so calculated. The rest 50 per cent would be divided equally between the petitioner and the newly added respondent no. 8, namely, Pushpanjali Kumari. Once such calculation is made, the respondent no. 3, Director, Agriculture, shall notice the contesting parties and handover individual cheques to them. The exercise should be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The petitioner, if so advised, may put forth her claim for payment of family pension enclosing the relevant circular on the issue and the Rules on which she intends 5 to rely in support of her claim within three weeks of disposal of this writ petition before the Director, Agriculture, Government of Bihar. The claim of the petitioner for family pension shall be considered by the Director, Agriculture and decided in the light of the materials adduced by her by a speaking order and if the claim is found to be supported by Rules, the order of payment of family pension may be issued within a period of three months of filing of any such representation by the petitioner. The claim if found unsupported by rules, must rejected by a speaking and reasoned order, to be passed within the same period. The writ petition stands disposed of with directions aforementioned. S.Sb/- (Jyoti Saran, J.)