GIRIJA SHANKAR PATEL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS prayed, learned counsel for the petitioners is permitted to make necessary corrections in the cause title as regards filing of the writ petition by the petitioners, who are minors, through their mother and natural guardian.

(2.) THE petitioners, who are claiming to be minor sons and daughters of Late Nathuni Prasad Singh from second wife are aggrieved by denial of their share in the death -cum -retiral dues and also family pension as admissible.

(3.) IT appears that earlier a writ petition, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 11211 of 2001, was filed by one Chandmuni Kuwar claiming to be the first wife of the deceased employee for payment of death - cum -retiral dues of her deceased husband Late Nathuni Prasad Singh, who died in harness while posted as Assistant Teacher in Government High School, Shahpur, Bihiya in the district of Bhojpur on 11.7.1999. The said writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 13.11.2001, contained in Annexure 4, directing the respondent -authorities to sanction and pay all the death -cum -retiral dues to the petitioner. In the said writ petition the mother of the present petitioner Most. Bipul Kunwar was also made party as respondent no. 8. The Court directed that it will be open for respondent no. 8 to claim a share in the proceeds received by the petitioner in accordance with law through an appropriate proceeding before the Civil Court. Said Most. Bipul Kuar filed L.P.A. No. 1509 of 2001, which has been disposed of by the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.2.2003, contained in Annexure 5. The Division Bench relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi V/s. State of Bihar, 2000 (1) Supreme 385 : 2000(2) PLJR (SC) 15, wherein the Apex Court held that second marriage during the lifetime of first wife is void under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act but the children of second void marriage are legitimate and are entitled to share family pension and death -cum -retirement gratuity along with wife and children of first marriage and that they would be entitled to family pension only till they attain majority and, further, that the second wife would not be entitled to anything, held that the appellant Most. Bipul Kuar is not entitled to family pension. However, the Division Bench further directed that her three minor children are entitled for family pension in terms of the amended provision contained in Memo No. PC -1 -Misc. -41/92/10059 dated 6.9.1996. The Court directed that the said minor children will be entitled to family pension to the extent of 50%.