Harish Kumar, J.—Heard Mr. Jay Prakash Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H.S. Roy, learned AC to AG for the State and Mr. Arun Kumar Arun, learned counsel for the Accountant General, Bihar.

2. The present writ application has been filed seeking a direction upon the respondents to ensure family pension to the petitioner, who is admittedly second wife of the deceased employee, late Raja Ram Singh and from their wedlock a son was born.

3. The short facts, which are relevant for consideration of the issue involved in the present writ petition is that the husband of the petitioner retired from the post of constable on 02.12.1986 at Islampur under Nalanda District Police, thereafter he was getting pension and finally died on 15.02.2000.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the marriage of the petitioner was solemnized with late Raja Ram Singh on 05.05.1986 in a temple and thereafter he started living with her and a son was also born out of the said wedlock. He also submits that various plots of lands have also been purchased in the name of the petitioner showing her as the wife of late Raja Ram Singh. He further submits that the late husband of the petitioner had also written application to the Superintendent of Police, Nalanda to add the name of the petitioner, as nominee in the service book, but no action has been taken. He lastly submits that it is the admitted fact that the first wife of the erstwhile employee had already died on 15.05.2018 itself.

5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no.3 stating therein that the petitioner being the 2nd wife of the erstwhile employee, who solemnized marriage during the life time of the 1st wife and as such the petitioner is not entitled to get the family pension, apart from the fact that her name has never been entered in the service book, as nominee.

6. It is needless to say that a Hindu, contracting second marriage during subsistence of the first marriage, though the second marriage is void in view of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act, as it contravene Section 5(i) thereof, but the children born out of the second marriage are legitimate as per Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 and they are also entitled to the benefits at par with the wife/son of the first marriage.

7. This Court would also feels apt and proper to quote the relevant part of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431 wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court dealing with the similar situation has been pleased to observe as follows:—

“9. Now, when first order was cancelled by the State Government and second passed depriving Yogmaya Devi and her children of any right in the pensionary benefits of Narain Lal, she filed writ petition in the High Court, which, as noted above, was allowed by the learned single Judge and later appeal filed by Rameshwari Devi against that was dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court which is impugned. Learned single Judge referred to Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 holding that even though the marriage of Narain Lal with Yogmaya Devi was void their children would be legitimate and thus would be entitled to claim share in the family pension and deathcum- retirement gratuity of Narain Lal but only till they attained majority. Learned single Judge accordingly issued direction to the State Government to issue fresh sanction order for payment of arrears of family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity to the minor children born from the wedlock between Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal till they attained majority but nothing would be payable to Yogmaya Devi.

13. But then it is not necessary for us to consider if Narain Lal could have been charged of misconduct having contracted a second marriage when his first wife was living as no disciplinary proceedings were held against him during his lifetime. In the present case, we are concerned on