IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 294 of 2008 1 Most Neelam Devi wife of late Ramashray Sharma 2 Most Nunu Devi wife of late Ramashray Sharma 3 Sikandar Kumar son of late Ramashray Sharma, All residents of village - Kutri, PO - Naru Murar, PS - Warisaliganj, Dist - Nawada - Petitioners Versus 1 The State of Bihar 2 Secretary, Primary Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 4 District Superintendent of Education, Nawada 5 Accountant General, Bihar, Patna - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr A K Thakur For the S t a t e : Mr Subhash Prasad Singh, GA VIII For the Accountant General : Mrs Anita Sinha *** 2 16.12.2008 Petitioner No 1 is the second wife of late Ramashray Sharma. Petitioner No 2 is the first wife of late Ramashray Sharma and petitioner No 3 is the only child being the son of late Ramashray Sharma. By this writ petition, virtually what the petitioners want is that a settlement amongst them be agreed to and acted upon by the State. As a consequence of superannuation and death of late Ramashray Sharma, petitioner No 3 got employment and petitioner No 2 got family pension. Petitioner No 1, though another widow of late Ramashray Sharma, in law, was not entitled to anything and was not given anything by the State. The parties, that are the three petitioners, appear to have come to an agreement by which petitioner No 2 is being supported by petitioner No 3 who has already got the employment and they have agreed that the family pension be paid to petitioner No 1. Thus, an agreement, amongst 2 the parties, they seek to enforce against the State. State, in its counter affidavit, has taken the position that in law, petitioner No 1, admittedly, being the second wife of the employee, cannot be paid family pension. It is further submitted that if this agreement is given recognition and enforced against the State, it would amount to forcing the State to do an act which is not legal rather which is prohibited. In my view, the learned counsel for the State is correct. If this Court orders what petitioners seek then this Court itself would be committing an illegality. If in fact there has been an arrangement between the three petitioners, the same can be achieved even without any direction to the State by petitioners No 1 and 2 opening a common Bank account, requesting the State to deposit the family pension in that account which could be withdrawn by petitioner No 1. This would keep the State and this Court away from committing any illegality. The writ petition, thus, merits no consideration and is permitted to be withdrawn as such. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)