CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.14040 OF 2009 In the matter of an application under Article 226 of the constitution of India. 1-BIBI NAZMUN NISHA W/O LATE MD. MUSTAFA VILL.- SOHPUR, P.S.- GHOGHARDIHA, DISTT.- MADHUBANI Versus 1-THE STATE OF BIHAR 2-DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHUBANI, COLLECTORATE OFFICE, MADHUBANI 3-DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION MADHUBANI 4-BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER LAKHNAUR, DISTT.- MADHUBANI 5-THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL BIHAR, BIRCHANDRA PATEL PATH, PATNA- 800001 6. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HRD, GOVT. OF BIHAR, SECRETARIATE, PATNA. ----------- For The Petitioner : Mr. R.N. Mukhopadhyay, Advocate Md. Abu Haider, Advocate Md. Nazir Ansari, Advocate Mr. Alok , Advocate For The State : Mr. Nirmal Kumar, G.P. 4 Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad,AC to GP -4 For the A.G. : Mr. Manikant Mishra, Advocate ---------------------- P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA ------------- S.K.SINHA,J As prayed for, learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna as respondent no. 6. The petitioner claims herself to be the second wife of the deceased employee who retired on 28th of February 2003 while working on the post of Assistant 2 Teacher in Prathimic Maktab Rahitol, Lakhanaur, District – Madhubani and died on 17.08.2009. It is further submitted that after the death of her husband, the Accountant General has issued an authority for payment of the family pension vide P.P.O. No. 444140 dated 06.03.2007 in equal share between the first wife of the deceased and the daughter of the petitioner. The claim of the petitioner is that in place of her daughter the name of the petitioner should be substituted/replaced since she is the second wife. It is further submitted that the grievance of the petitioner has remained unredressed even though the concerned District Superintendent of Education sent the necessary papers to the Account General as per letter no. 4709 dated 4th of December 2008 as contained in Annexure – 6 which has also been annexed as Annexure- A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. The Accountant General as per the letter vide memo no. 1342 dated 2nd of February 2009 as contained in Annexure-8 has sought the necessary specific decision of the State Government with regard to the claim of this petitioner for family pension on the ground that she is the second wife of the deceased employee. However, till date neither the Accountant General has issued the authority for payment of family pension nor the petitioner has been indicated 3 any decision of the State Government on her representation as well. He further submits that the petitioner belongs to Mohammedan family and as such, she is entitled to have the admissible family pension to her and as such, any letter of the State Government contrary to the above is not applicable in the case of Mohammedan family. Mr. Nirmal Kumar, Government Pleader No. 4 appearing for the State submits that in view of the Government’s decision as contained in memo no. 10059 dated 6th of September 1996 vide Annexure- A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent no. 5, petitioner being the second wife is not entitled to claim for family pension. It is further submitted that necessary papers were sent to the Accountant General as per letter no. 4709 dated 4th of December 2008 followed by memo no. 426 dated 13th of February 2010 as contained in Annexure – A series. Learned counsel for the Accountant General submits that in view of the Government Decision as contained in Annexure- A petitioner being the second wife is not entitled to family pension. Learned counsel for the petitioner in reply submits that the aforesaid letter dated 06.09.1996 vide Annexure – A has been issued following decision of the 4 Central Government considering the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and as such, the same is not applicable in the case of this petitioner who belongs to Mohammedan family and also referred to the order of this court dated 18.03.2008 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12016 of 2008 (Noorjadi Khatoon Vs. State of Bihar & Ors) wherein it was indicated that the aforesaid letter is not applicable in the case of Mohammedan. It is further submitted that till date Accountant General has not communicated anything to the State Government in light of the relevant papers sent by the State Government as contained in Annexure- A series to the counter affidavit of the respondent no. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notwithstanding the above that the matter is under correspondence between the state Government and the Accountant General, petitioner proposes to file a representation before the respondent no. 6 for expeditious disposal of her grievance. In view of the above, in case such representation stating details of her claims is filed by the petitioner within a period of four weeks along with the certified copy of the present order as also the copy of the relevant documents, if any, in support of her claim, the above respondent shall dispose of the representation by a 5 reasoned order in accordance with law expeditiously, preferably within a period of four months on receipt of such representation. Upon consideration, if the representation of the petitioner finds favour the Competent Authority shall immediately issue necessary sanction order in favour of the petitioner and communicate the same to the Accountant General, Patna, Bihar so that the necessary authorization could be issued in favour of the petitioner for receiving the admissible family pension. The writ application stands disposed of with the above observations/directions. Patna High Court Date – 17.08.2010 N.A.F.R/ Jagdish ( Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J.)