IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4774 of 2006 MOST.BHAGWANI DEVI widow of late Chandra Shekhar Bharti, resident of village Dhanchhuha, Post Office Dhanchhuha, Anchal Sahar, District- Bhojpur (Ara) at present residing with her Brother namely Kamta Giri at village- Irki, P. S. Belaganj, District Gaya….. Petitioner. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Account General, Bihar, Patna. 3. Accounts Officer cum Assit. Accountant General Bihar, Patna. 4. The A.G. ( A & E), II, Bihar and Jharkhand, Bihar, Patna. 5. The Senior Accounts Officer, ( A. G. Office) Bihar, Patna. 6. The Director General, Information and Public Relation Department, Bihar, Patna. 7. The Director, Public Relation Department, Bihar, Patna. 8. The Director, Information and Public Relation Department, Jharkhand, Ranchi 9. The Joint Director, Pramandal Public Relation Office, Ranchi 10. The Treasury Officer, Gaya. 11. Abhishek Bharti Claiming to be son of Late Chandra Shekhar Bharti. 12. Supriya Bharti claiming to be daughter of late Chandra Shekhar Bharti Both resident of Old Commissioner Compound S. N. Ganguli Road, Ranch, Jharkhand ….. Respondents. ----------- 2. 7.05.2010 Heard counsel for the petitioner, counsel for the State of Bihar, counsel for the Accountant General as also counsel for State of Jharkhand. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ petition reads as follows:- “1. That this application, by petitioner, citizen of India, for issuance of any appropriate writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for direction to the respondents/authorities concerned to pay full sanctioned family pension amount to the petitioner in stead of ½ (half) of the sanctioned amount (other half is being paid to the private respondent no.11 and 2 12) and/or to allow other suitable relief/reliefs in facts and circumstances of the case.” Counsel for the petitioner submits that as a matter of fact, the other half of the family pension which was being made to the alleged step -son and daughter of the petitioner is not admissible to them inasmuch as the law does not recognize second wife to be legitimate for the purpose of family pension. He further submits that in fact alleged step son and daughter are already employed in Government service and that too by way of compassionate appointment in place of husband of the petitioner and therefore they are not entitled for payment of family pension. The issue as to whether the deceased employee, late Chandra Shekhar Bharti had performed two marriages or whether the petitioner is legitimate first wife can only be adjudicated in a properly constituted civil suit. That apart, the law is well settled that even though the second wife may not be entitled for family pension but the offspring from the said marriage even though illegitimate would be entitled for family pension. The issue that such payment of family pension should be stopped after there 3 being given employment in Government service by way of compassionate appointment would require further investigation by the competent authority which however cannot be made within the limited parameters of this writ application wherein the petitioner only wants the restoration of full family pension after stopping the payment of half of family pension being given to respondent nos. 11 and 12. Here again the petitioner has got misconception of law. If there are two wives getting family pension and one of them dies or become ineligible to draw such family pension, the rest of the amount does not restore back to first widow. In fact, State will keep on paying the half of amount as was originally sanctioned to the petitioner being one of the widows. That being so, this writ petition is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)