Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Pat) 14931

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5393 of 2026

Najma Khatoon W/o Late Md. Usman, resident of Aman Colony, ward no. 23, P.S.- Phulwari Sharif, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Health Services, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai.
4. The Civil Surgeon, Lakhisarai.
5. The In-charge Medical Officer, Community Health Centre, Surajgadha, Lakhisarai.
6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s

Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeeb Kumar Sanju, Advocate Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate Mr. Bhaskar Sandilya, Advocate Mr. Ravi Kumar, Advocate
For the A.G. : Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, Advocate Mr. Vishesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : AC to Additional Advocate General (13)

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH

Date : 21-07-2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sanjeeb Kumar Sanju, Sunil Kumar, Bhaskar Sandilya, Ravi Kumar
For the Respondents:Raj Nandan Prasad, Vishesh Kumar Singh, AC to Additional Advocate General (13)

In the absence of a Uniform Civil Code, a Muslim male's second marriage, if valid under Mohammedan Personal Law, entitles the widow to family pension under Bihar Government service resolutions, notwithstanding the absence of prior departmental permission under the Government Servants Conduct Rules.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 25, 29(1), 44, 309 - Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976 - R. 23 - Family Pension - Validity of second marriage of Muslim male under personal law - Resolution contained in Memo No. 1549 dated 27.06.2011 clarifies that surviving widows of deceased Muslim employee are entitled to receive family pension in equal proportion - Petitioner, second wife of deceased, sought family pension following husband's death - State contended lack of departmental permission for second marriage as per Rule 23 of 1976 Rules - Court held that in absence of Uniform Civil Code, Mohammedan Personal Law governs marital rights - Proviso to R. 23 permits polygamy where personal law allows - Resolution of 2011 is clarificatory and mandates pension to surviving widows of valid Muslim marriages.

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, as the second wife of the deceased employee, sought family pension after the death of her husband. The Accountant General denied the claim, citing a lack of prior departmental permission for the second marriage as required by service rules, despite the marriage being valid under Mohammedan Personal Law.

Findings of Court:
The Court directed the Civil Surgeon to facilitate the sanctioning of family pension to the petitioner, noting the State did not deny the validity of the marriage and the 2011 Resolution protects the rights of surviving widows under personal law.

Issues: Whether a second wife of a deceased Muslim government servant is entitled to family pension despite a lack of prior departmental permission for the second marriage under service conduct rules.

Ratio Decidendi: Mohammedan Personal Law remains the governing law for marital status among Muslims in the absence of a national Uniform Civil Code; service rules requiring prior permission for a second marriage cannot operate to deny statutory-based family pension rights to a validly married widow.

Result: Writ petition allowed.

ORAL JUDGMENT

Heard Mr. Sanjeeb Kumar Sanju, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner; Mr. Raj Nandan Prasad, learned counsel for the Accountant General, Bihar and learned AC to AAG-13 for the State.

2. The petitioner in paragraph no. 1 of the present writ petition has sought, inter alia, the following relief(s), which is reproduced hereinafter:-

"That this is an application for issuance of proper writ or writs, order or orders, direction or directions to the respondents to immediately start the Family Pension to the petitioner as the husband of the petitioner already died on 14.10.2024.

For A further direction to the respondents to make payment of arrears of Family Pension from 15.10.2024 to the date on which Family Pension starts in favour of petitioner with statutory and penal interest."

3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the resolution contained in Memo No. 1549 dated 27.06.2011 clarifies that in the case of a deceased Muslim employee, who is permitted under Mohammedan Personal Law to contract up to four marriages, all surviving widows are entitled, upon his death, to receive family pension in equal proportion. Learned counsel in these backgrounds clarifies the statement made in paragraph no. 10 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 6 that Late Md. Usman (deceased employee) had sent a letter dated 14.09.2021 to the office to update/amend the name of family pensioner in the P.P.O. No. 300244 and add name of his second wife Najma Khatoon in place of first wife Khurshid Jahan, who used to receive family pension, died on 28.04.2021 and her second wife younger daughter Ms. Tahsin Fatima in place of his son Mr. Faijan Ahmed after attaining the age 21 years. The said letter has been brought on record by way of Annexure-R/3 addressed to the In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Suryagarha, Lakhisarai (Respondent No. 5), wherein, he had shown his desire that he has a son namely Faijan Ahmed from his second wife (petitioner), whose date of birth is 22.09.1997 as per the Matriculation Certificate and is aged about more than 21 years and he has also a daughter, whose date of birth is 30.10.2002 as per the Matriculation Certificate. Learned counsel submitted that respondents have not denied the Letter dated 14.09.2021 addressed to the In-charge Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Suryagarha, Lakhisarai (Respondent No. 5) by the deceased employee Late Md. Usman and the misleading statement made in paragraph no. 10 of the counter affidavit for denying the claim of the petitioner is required to be deprecated.

4. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have not denied in a clear manner that petitioner is not entitled for family pension as per the clarificatory resolution contained in Memo No. 1549 dated 27.06.2011. Learned counsel in support of her claim, has relied on several decisions of the co-ordinate Bench of this Court:

(i) Abshar Ahmad Vs. Bihar State Electricity Board and Ors. reported in 2005 (2) PLJR 467.

(ii) L.P.A. No. 1419 of 2013 (Bina Ansari vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.)

(iii) CWJC No. 7488 of 2021 (Shamima Khatoon vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.)

(iv) CWJC No. 10501 of 2021 (Bibi Shagufta @ Bibi Shugupta vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.)

(v) CWJC No. 16707 of 2022 (Tartila Khatoon vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.)

5. In the above background, learned counsel contended that Mohammedan Personal Law permits four wives and petitioner being only surviving wife of the deceased employee Late Md. Usman, is entitled for family pension considering the facts and circumstances of the case, as well as, the pathetic condition of the petitioner, who has to take care of three children, who are major but not employed and are dependent upon the petitioner.

6. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that there is no dispute with regard to the settled legal position that, i

Click Here to Read the rest of this document