JUDGMENT :

(Harish Tandon, J.)

A digration from an issue involved in the instant writ petition becomes inevitable on the stand of both the parties raising an issue striking at the root of the rights of the parties in relation to their matrimonial status consequently impacting the entitlement to share the retiral benefits including family pension under the DCRB RULES , 1971. Though the stand of the party in a proceeding initiated before the State Administrative Tribunal which becomes necessary because of the disbursement of such retiral benefits but the shifting of the core issue is manifest on the stand of the parities on a point being raised on the marital status of the private respondent claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased government employee.

2. The facts emanates from the record, as unfurled, are that one Manirul Islam was holding the post of Sub-Inspector of Police at Uttar Dinajpur and died at the age of 48 while in service. Both the petitioners and the private respondent claimed as legally wedded wife of the said deceased Government employee and approached the State Authorities for disbursement of the retiral benefit as well as entitlement to a family pension under the aforesaid Rules. The litigation reached to the Tribunal as the writ representations of the respective alleged wives were not attained to by the competent authority and a direction was passed upon the Superintendent of Police, Uttar Dinajpur to dispose of the said representations by recording proper reasons in accordance with law. The Superintended of Police, Uttar Dinajpur passed a reasoned order on the premise that both the petitioner and the private respondents being the wife of the deceased Government employee are entitled to get equal share of family pension in terms of the Rule 104 of DCRB RULES , 1971 read with Notification no. 54-F (PEN) dated 13.1.1997 issued by the West Bengal Finance Department, Audit Branch, Pension Cell. The said authority further held that the leave salary of the deceased Government employee will be received by both the wives in equal share in terms of the Rule 168 B read with Finance Department Order no. 4625-F dated 26.5.1999. The said authority further came to conclusion that since the nomination for death gratuity before the demise of the Government employee stands in the name of the petitioner being the first wife, she is entitled to receive the same in terms of the Rule 98 and 100 of the said Rules. So far as the payment of the Provident Fund is concerned, the authority held that in terms of the Rule 7 (ii) of the General Provident Fund (West Bengal Services) Rules all the family members of the deceased employee are entitled to receive the same in equal share but it shall not be paid to the son who has attained the age of maturity and the married daughter whose husband is alive. The amount pertaining to the group insurance was directed to be given to the heirs of the deceased Government employee in equal share in terms of Rule 11 (iii) of West Bengal State Government Employees Group Insurance-cum-Savings Scheme , 1987, upon obtaining an indemnity bond for claims as no nomination was done by the said Government employee.

3. The said order is assailed by the private respondent before the Tribunal which gave rise to registration of Case no. OA 350 of 2020. By the impugned order dated 12th October, 2020, the Tribunal passed an interim order staying the operation of the reasoned orde