IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.149 of 2011 In (MA 41/2010) 1. Union Of India through General Manager, Eastern Railway, 17 Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata- 700001 2. The Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, 17 Netaji Subhash Road, Kolkata- 700001 3. The Chief Works Manager, Eastern Railway, Jamalpur, District Munger 4. The Deputy Chief Personnel Officer, Eastern Railway, Jamalpur Workshop, Post office & Police station Jamalpur District Munger Versus 1. Uma Devi wife of Late Prem Kumar, resident of Mohalla- Mohanpur, Near Loco Gate, PO & PS Jamalpur District Munger 2. Mina Devi, wife of Late Prem Kumar at present wife of Mantu Raut, Son of Balmiki Raut, resident of Quarter no. 448, Eastern Railway Colony, Jamalpur PO & PS Jamalpur District Munger ---------------------------------- For the petitioners: Mr. D. K. Sinha, Sr. advocate Mr. Anil Singh, advocate For the opposite party no.1 Mr. T. N. Matin, Sr. advocate Mr. Rajeev Kumar Sinha, advocate For the opposite party no.2: Mr. Surendra Kumar Singh, advocate Mr. Kamaluddin, advocate --------- 3 28-09-2011 Heard the parties. By the order under review this court passed an order on the basis of compromise petition between two widows of the deceased. As per compromise the appellant as second wife is entitled to receive half of the family pension payable by the respondent Railways. The order under review further shows that the counsel for the Railways then appearing in the matter had no objection to payment of half family 2 pension to the appellant and half to the respondent no.1. Now, through this review application a difficulty has been expressed that the rules do not permit payment of family pension to second wife. In reply, learned counsel for the opposite party no.1 has placed reliance upon Rule 75, sub Rule 7 (i) (a) which provides that where the family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares. Learned counsel for the Railways has submitted that only where the personal law permits second marriage and it has been contracted with permission of the departmental authorities, the family pension will be payable to more widows than one. We are unable to read any such provision in Rule 75. Even if there be a provision that an employee should not enter into 2nd marriage without permission, penalty for 2nd marriage by way of departmental proceeding etc. may be inflicted on the concerned employee but the widows cannot be made to suffer any deprivation for no fault of theirs. No doubt the rules 3 mention the word “payable” to more widows than one, this expression is applicable in the present case where both the widows have agreed that family pension will be payable to both of them. Since, in the facts of the case, we have held that family pension has become payable to more widows than one as provided under Rule 75, sub Rule 7, sub Rule 8 of Rule 75 will naturally have no effect. In view of aforesaid discussion, we find no good reasons to review our earlier order, the review application is dismissed on merits. Considering that parties have been heard on merits and the explanation in the limitation petition, the delay in preferring this review petition is condoned. I.A. stands allowed. BKS/- (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Hemant Kumar Srivastava, J.)