1. This writ appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 16.5.2008, passed by learned Single Judge of this court, in WP(C) No.316of 2003.

2. Heard learned senior counsel, Mr. A.K. Bhowmik, assisted by learned counsel, Mr. R. Datta, for the appellants, and learned ASG, Mr. P.K. Biswas, appearing for respondent Nos.l and 2. We have also heard the learned Addl. G.A., Mr. S. Chakraborty, for respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5, and learned counsel, Mr. C.S. Sinha, for respondent No.6.

3. Facts may be summarized thus :

The appellants along with Ms. Rumi Sinha (writ petitioner No.3) (since deceased), presented WP(C) No.316 of 2003 before this court, inter alia, stating that Gobinda Das Sinha, husband of petitioner No.1, and father of petitioner Nos.2,3 and 4, while working as an Assistant Teacher under the Directorate of School Education, Government of Tripura, attached with Kamalpur Madrasa H.S. School, died on 1.11.2001, living behind the writ petitioners as his legal heirs. It is the case of the appellants/writ petitioners that marriage between Gobinda Das Sinha and petitioner No.1, Smt. Nanda Sinha was solemnized in the year 1978, and that she was the second wife of Gobinda Das Sinha. That,Gobinda Das Sinha earlier married Smt. Bilasini Sinha (respondent No.6) in the year 1969 and she has a daughter, namely, Rubi Sinha, aged’ about 31 years, at the relevant point' of time and she had already been given in marriage. It is, inter alia, contended by the writ petitioners that after the death of Gobinda Das Sinha on 28.8.2002, petitioner No.1 made application to the Director of School Education for granting all benefits accrued due to death of Gobinda Das Sinha, including pensionary benefits and also for providing a job to petitioner No.2 under Die-in-Harness Scheme. The State respondents, considering the representation of the writ petitioners and respondent No.6, allowed Group Insurance, DCRG benefits. Leave Salary, etc., to respondent No.6 and petitioner Nos.2, 3, 4, in equal share. No benefit was granted to petitioner No.1, being second wife of the deceased public servant. It is the case of the writ petitioners that as per direction of respondent No.4, the Headmaster of the concerned school, sent pension proposal to respondent No.2 for granting family pension to respondent No.6 and petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 in equal share. Even after such a proposal was sent from the State respondents, respondent No.2 issued P.P.O., granting family pension in favour of respondent No.6 alone vide Memo. No.PENI/FAM/1748/4829-30 (28th August, 2003) (Annexure 8 to the writ petition). It is the further case of the writ petitioners that the writ petitioners No.2, 3 and 4, being illegitimate children of the deceased, are entitled to get family pension in equal share with respondent No.6. By issuing the order, granting family pension to respondent No.6 alone, respondent No.2, virtually, has taken away the right of the writ petitioners. The writ petitioners, therefore, prayed for quashing Annexure 8 to the writ petition and to pass necessary order directing the respondents to grant family pension to writ petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4 in equal share with respondent No.6.

4. Respondent Nos.1 and 2, in their counter affidavit, contended that according to rules, family pension shall not be payable to more than one member of the family at the same time and so, respondent No.6, being the first wife, is only entitled to receive the monthly family pension, and there is nothing wrong in the action taken by the respondents.

5. The 'stand of respondent Nos.3, 4 and 5 is that they have made the proposal to grant family pension in equal share to respondent No.6, being the first wife and the writ petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 4, being the illegitimate children, are entitled to get the family pension as unmarried minor daughters and minor son, left by the deceased.

6. Respondent No.6, in her counter affidavit, denied the claim of the writ petitioners and further contend