ORAL JUDGMENT

Date : 29-10-2024 Heard Mr. Shivendra Kishore, learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner, Mr. Rajeev Ranjan, learned Advocate for the State as well as Mr. Mritunjay Kumar, learned Advocate for the Punjab National Bank.

2. The petitioner is admittedly the second wife of late Ram Nath Ram, who superannuated on 31.01.2005 from the post of Assistant Teacher, Government Primary School, Bilaspur, Chenari, Rohtas and subsequent thereto died on

20.05.2012.

3. Drawing the attention of this Court to the averments made in the writ petition and the materials available on record it is contended that the husband of the petitioner had two wives; the first Shivraji Devi died issueless on 23.08.2005; During the lifetime of the first wife, the husband of the petitioner had solemnised second marriage with the petitioner and they blessed with a daughter Pooja Kumari on 23.03.2004, who is still unmarried. Since the first wife predeceased, the erstwhile employee, thus after the death of the erstwhile employee, the petitioner submitted her application before the District Programme Officer, Rohtas for family pension on 20.05.2015. On the said application, the matter was enquired and the Block Education Officer, Shivsagar, Rohtas submitted a report to the District Programme Officer along with the genealogical table and other necessary documents fortifying the aforenoted facts.

4. Learned Senior Advocate adverting to the aforesaid facts firstly contended that the application of the petitioner for grant of family pension is pending since 2015 and till date it has not been brought to its logical conclusion. It is next contended that the identical issue was under consideration before the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 72 of 2018 (Sumitra Kunwar @ Sunaina Devi Sumitra Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) reported in 2019(3) PLJR 307, wherein the learned Division Bench of this Court having taken note of the resolution of the Finance Department, Government of Bihar dated 06.09.1996 has been pleased to allow the appeal and directed to issue a writ of mandamus to the respondents for revisiting the matter and ensure the family pension to the surviving widow. It would be apposite to quote para-8 of the judgment, hereinunder;

“8. In the instant case, the peculiar fact is that even though there appears to have been a second marriage, but the first wife had already died before the death of the employee himself. Thus, the second wife was the only widow surviving as on the date of the death of the employee and there was nobody else to claim the family pension as the first wife had no children. In the given circumstances therefore, this peculiar case required a different treatment and interpretation in the light of the Resolution dated 6th of September, 1996, quoted herein above, and since the appellant was only surviving widow and wife as on the date of the death of the employee, there is no other prejudice being caused to the Government nor there being a violation of the Resolution dated 06th of September, 1996, the appellant ought to have been extended the said benefit. We do not find any such consideration having been made by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 06th December, 2017.”

5. The learned Senior Advocate further contended that the judgment rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court has also been followed by this Court in the case of Indu Devi vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. (CWJC No. 358 of 2018) in its decision dated 07.12.2022, wherein this Court placing reliance upon the aforenoted decision had directed to consider the claim of the petitioner who was only the surviving widow at the time of death of the erstwhile employee for family pension. Further reliance has also been placed on a decision rendered by the learned coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Bibi Rashida Khatoon vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2021 (2) PLJR 92, wherein the learned Division Bench has directed the responden