IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.637 of 2010 MOST.NAGEENA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the appellant: Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, Advocate For the respondent nos. 1 to 7: Mr. C.L.Singh, SC _ For the respondent nos.8: Mr. B.S.R.P.Sinha, Advocate 3 15/4/2010 In this intra-court appeal the assail is to the order dated 25.1.2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC. No.12026 of 2003, whereby the writ court had passed the following order: “The claim in this writ application relates to payment of gratuity, family pension, General Provident Fund and other post retiral dues along with statutory interest where applicable to the husband of the petitioner and private respondent no.8, the latter being the first wife while the petitioner is stated to be the second wife. The counter affidavit of the respondents urges that the marriage with the petitioner was contrary to service conduct rules while the first wife was living. Relying on a Bench decision of this Court in 1977 (1)PLJR 416 (Shanta Sinha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) this court direct that the pensionary benefits be allocated at 50% between both the wives. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly to be complied with within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.” While hearing this appeal on 6.4.2010 the following order was passed: “Let a copy of the memorandum of appeal 2 along with annexures be supplied to Mr. Ashok Kumar Sharma, learned counsel representing the original writ petitioner-respondent herein. Matter be listed on 15th April, 2010 The appellant as well as the original writ petitioner shall remain personally present before this court on that day. Be it noted, we have directed for personal presence as we are inclined to think there is possibility of settlement.” In pursuance of the aforesaid order, Nageena Devi, the first wife of late Kanhaiya Yadav and the respondent no.8 Meena Devi, the second wife of late Kanhaiya Yadav, are present. Be it noted, the appellant is represented by Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, learned counsel, and the respondent no.8 is represented by Mr. B.S.R.P.Sinha, learned counsel. The State is represented by Mr. C.L.N. Singh, learned Standing Counsel – I. In course of hearing of this appeal an effort was made to arrive at a settlement and accordingly a suggestion was given to Nageena Devi, the appellant, to divide the retiral dues and the pensionary benefits. It was suggested to her that she should leave 1/3rd of the retiral dues and the pensionary benefits to the respondent no.8 Meena Devi. Mr. Rana Ishwar Chandra, learned counsel for the appellant, 3 discussed with Nageena Devi and agreed to the said suggestion. We may also note that Nageena Devi though quite old very candidly stated that she had never objected for any kind of division. She has agreed after discussion with her counsel. Respondent no.8 being advised by her learned counsel Mr. B.S.R.P.Sinha also accepted the said decision. In view of aforesaid concession, Mr. C.L.N.Singh, learned counsel for the State, fairly stated that the State has no objection. In view of aforesaid, the order passed by the learned Single Judge is modified to the extent that the appellant shall get 2/3rd of the retiral dues and the pensionary benefits and the respondent no.8 shall get 1/3rd of the same. The State shall disburse the amount proportionately within four weeks. Recording such concession, the appeal is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Neyaz/ (Dipak Misra, CJ.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) 4