ORDER :

Shree Chandrashekhar, J.

The appellant who was the writ petitioner is aggrieved of the order dated 11th November 2019 passed in WP(S) No.2838 of 2019.

2. On account of a dispute between the appellant and Nutan Kachhap with whom the husband of the appellant had solemnized second marriage, WP(S) No.2838 of 2019 was instituted by the appellant with a prayer for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits including gratuity with interest payable to her on death of her husband who died in a road accident on 2nd August 2017. It appears that in the proceeding of WP(S) No.2838 of 2019, it was brought to the notice of the Court that Ms. Anushka Kumari was born out of wedlock between Binod Kumar Singh and Nutan Kachhap and, accordingly, the writ Court approved the decision of the competent authority to pay pension and death-cum-retiral benefits to the appellant and Ms. Anushka Kumari.

3. It is this decision of the writ Court to which the appellant has taken exception to on the ground that the death-cum-retiral benefits accrued on death of her husband should be distributed equally amongst all legal heirs.

4. By an order dated 6th October 2021, I.A No.3712 of 2020 which was filed by the appellant for arraying Ms. Anushka Kumari (minor) as respondent no.7 in the present proceeding was allowed.

5. Pursuant thereof, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, the learned counsel has put in his appearance in the present proceeding on behalf of the respondent no.7.

6. The writ Court passed the following order:

“5. Be that as it may, having heard the submissions of the parties, this Court finds strength in the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431 has held that children of second void marriage legitimate and entitled to share family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity along with wife and children of first marriage. Further, as per Service Law, in case of dispute of settlement of retiral benefits, the government could hold enquiry about factum of second marriage and disburse the benefits to first wife and their children as well as to children born from second wife. Relevant paras of the judgment passed in case of Rameshwari Devi (supra) is reproduced herein below:

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 only with the question as to who is entitled to the family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity on the death of Narain Lal. When there are two claimants to the pensionary benefits of a deceased employee and there is no nomination wherever required State Government has to hold an inquiry as to the rightful claimant. Disbursement of pension cannot wait till a civil court pronounces upon the respective rights of the parties. That would certainly be a long drawn affair. Doors of civil courts are always open to any party after and even before a decision is reached by the State Government as to who is entitled to pensionary benefits. Of course, inquiry conducted by the State Government cannot be a sham affair and it could also not be arbitrary. Decision has to be taken in a bona fide reasonable and rational manner. In the present case an inquiry was held which cannot be termed as sham. Result of the inquiry was that Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal lived as husband and wife since 1963. A presumption does arise, therefore, that marriage of Yogmaya Devi with Narain Lal was in accordance with Hindu rites and all ceremonies connected with a valid Hindu marriage were performed. This presumption Rameshwari Devi has been unable to rebut. Nevertheless, that, however, does not make the marriage between Yogmaya Devi and Narain Lal as legal. Of course, when there is a charge of bigamy under Section 494 IPC strict pro