Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner, who is widow of Late Jag-dambika Pd. Sinha, who superannuated from the post of S. D. O. Welfare, danapur, in the month of January, 1979, has prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to pay General Provident Fund amount and full amount of family pension to her for his deceased husband and to allow all other relief or reliefs, to which she is found entitled. 2. In short, the relevant facts are that the deceased government servant superannuated from the aforesaid post in January, 1979, whereafter he was getting the pension but G. P. F. amount could not be paid and in the meantime, he died on 25-2-1983. The deceased government servant had two wives and, as such, after his death the family pen-sion amount on his account was divided into half and half between first wife smt. Kalawati Devi and the petitioner, who is his second wife. The first wife died on 19-10-1992 and thereafter the petitioner requested the Treasury Officer, Patna to pay her full pension-in-view of the fact that now only the petitioner is entitled to get the pension of the deceased government servant. The petitioner also made a representation on 11-8-93 with regard to the above along with an affidavit about the death of the first wife Smt. Kalawati (Devi. When no action was taken and the petitioner was continued to be given only half of the pension amount under pension account No. P-194 she filed the present writ application. Late Kalawati devi was drawing her pension through savings bank account No. R. C.10081 of rajendranagar branch of the State Bank of India. 3. The petitioner claims that full g. P. F. amount of the deceased husband is still due and as such after the death of smt. Kalawati Devi she is entitled for the same. It is pleaded that as per the hindu Law, on the death of first and there is no provision contrary to it under the Bihar Pension Rules, but despite the undisputed facts and the legal position, the respondents are sitting tight over the matter with the result that the petitioner is subjected to financial crisis. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Accountant general, Bihar (Respondent No.2), in which facts are not disputed. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Accountant general, Bihar (Respondent No.2), in which facts are not disputed. However, it is contended therein that the rule position is that when an official is survived by more than one widow, family pension will be paid to her in equal share. On the death of the widow, her share of pension will become payable to eligible minor children and if at the time of her death the widow does not leave minor children, the payment of family pension will cease. 5. A counter-affidavit on behalf of the Treasury Officer has also been filed, in which also the contention regarding the said rule has been re-iterated and further stated that till death, Patna treasury had not received any information regarding the eligible minor of the deceased widow and as such, the share of pension of deceased wife ceased, for which the petitioner is not entitled. In regard to Provident Fund, it is stated that the petitioner never appeared before the Treasury Officer with her provident Found Payment authority and, as such, there is no pendency in the Treasury. 6. No counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar. 7. The dispute in the present case thus, appears to be as to whether after the death of the other wife of the deceased government servant, the remaining wife became entitled for payment of full pension or would continue to get half pension and further whether she will be entitled for the payment of the Provident Fund dues of her deceased husband, there being no other claimant. 8. The only Rule relied upon is the one contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, which is extract of the family-pension scheme of the State government Employees 1964 issued vide memo No. Pen-103/64-9505-E, dated 3-10-64. The said scheme has been brought into force with effect from 1st April, 1964 and made applicable to all regular employees of pensionable establishment temporary or permanent, who are in service on the 1st April, 1954, or are recruited thereafter. The said scheme has been brought into force with effect from 1st April, 1964 and made applicable to all regular employees of pensionable establishment temporary or permanent, who are in service on the 1st April, 1954, or are recruited thereafter. Under para 7 the family pension is admissible in case of death while in service, or, after retirement on or after 1st April, 1964, if at the time of death, the retired officer was in receipt of a compensation, invalid to the retiring or superannuation pension and further, that a government servant dying while in service should have completed a minimum period of one year of service. According to sub-para (ii) of para 7, family for the purpose of scheme is to include the following relatives of the officer - (a) wife, in the case of a male officer; (b) husband, in the case of a female officer; (c) minor sons; and (d) unmarried minor daughters. 9. Note 1 of the said para 7 provides that (c) and (d) will include children adopted legally before retirement and note 2 provides that marriage after retirement will not be recognised for the purpose of this scheme. Under its clause (Hi) the pension has been made admissible (a) in the case of widow/widower upto the date of death or remarriage whichever is earlier; (b)in the case of minor son until he attains the age of 18 years and (c) in the case of unmarried daughter until she attains the age of 21 years or marriage whichever is earlier. 10. Besides the above, the other provisions relevant the Notes (i), (ii)and (iv) added vide Notification No. Pen-1034-67/9425-F, dated 27-7-1967, which are quoted hereunder : (i) where an officer is survived by more than one widow, the pension will be paid to them in equal share. On the death of a widow her share of the pension will become payable to her eligible minor child. If at the time of her death, a widow leaves no eligible minor child, the payment of her share of the pension will cease. (ii) Where an officer is survived by a widow but has left behind an eligible minor child from another wife, the eligible minor child will be paid the share of pension which the mother would have received, if she had been alive at the time of the death of the officer. (ii) Where an officer is survived by a widow but has left behind an eligible minor child from another wife, the eligible minor child will be paid the share of pension which the mother would have received, if she had been alive at the time of the death of the officer. (iv) Except as provided in the Note. below sub-para of this para pension awarded under this Scheme will not be payable to more than one member of an officers family at the same time. It will first be admissible to the widow/widower and thereafter to the eligible minor children. Cases which have already been settled will not be reopened, cases outstanding of the date of issue of orders will be dealt with in terms of these orders. In so far as persons surviving in patna High Court and in the Bihar legislative Assembly Secretariat and bihar Legislative Council Secretariat are concerned this order has been issued with the concurrence of the Chief Justice of the Patna High Court and after consuliation with the Speaker of the legislative Assembly and the Chairman of the Legislative Council. 11 According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the Hindu Law has laid down principles relating to the survivorship of two or more widows. In sub-section (iv) of Sec.43 of the hindu Law two or more widows succeeding as co-heirs to the estate of their deceased husband take as joint tenants with rights of survivorship and equal beneficial enjoyment. Thus, if a Hindu dies leaving two widows, they are entitled as between themselves to an equal share of the income, and on the death of either of them, the other is entitled to the whole of the income by survivorship, and though co-widows take as joint tenants, no one of them was a right to enforce an absolute partition of the estate against the others so as to destroy their right of survivorship. It was also contended that under the Hindu Succession Act the properly of an intestate shall be divided among the heirs in class i of the Schedule in accordance with the rule (1) - the intestates widow, or if there are more widows than one, all the widows together shall take one share. He placed reliance on the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, lucknow, reported in 1993 (3) All India service Law Tribunal 130. He placed reliance on the decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, lucknow, reported in 1993 (3) All India service Law Tribunal 130. The said decision however, in my opinion is of no help to the petitioner, as it relates to rule 54 (7) of C. C. S. (Pension) Rules and under its proviso, if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of family pension shall not lapse but shall be payable to other widow in equal share, or if there is only one such widow in full; whereas, the scheme for-the payment of family pension to the survivors of the State Govt. employees of Bihar, referred to above, provides that if at the time of her death the widow leaves no eligible minor child, the payment of her pension will cease. 12. However, from the reading oe para 7 of 1964 Scheme and the note thereto, in which the expressions used are family pension and pension ad missible to the family leave no room for doubt that the said expressions family pension and pension are synonymous and identical in sense and uses for each other. 13. The Constitution Bench of the supreme Court in the case of Deokinandan Prasad V/s. The State of Bihar, reported in 1971 S. C.1409 held that the pension is not a bounty payable on the sweetwill and pleasure of the Government and that the right to receive pension is a property right. In the case of bharat Petroleum Management Staff Officers V/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation ltd. , reported in (1988) 3 SCC 32 , it has been re-iterated by the Apex Court that pension is no longer a bounty and further held to be property. Earlier, under the existing Order (the Liberised Pension Rule, 1950) an officer had normally to complete service of not less than twenty years, in order to become eligible for the benefit of Family Pension, and also the duration of the pension was limited to a maximum period of ten years after the date of superannuation, whichever was earlier. In the year 1964 the State Government at the instance of the Government of India reconsidered for measures being adopted for providing a special security to their employees and sanctioned a new scheme of the family pension for its employees, vide aforementioned memo of 1964. 14. In the year 1964 the State Government at the instance of the Government of India reconsidered for measures being adopted for providing a special security to their employees and sanctioned a new scheme of the family pension for its employees, vide aforementioned memo of 1964. 14. In view of the aforementioned law settled by the Supreme Court there cannot be any doubt that the family pension is also not a bounty, rather it is a property. Under the aforementioned 1964 Scheme a family is entitled for pension as per the benefits provided therein. In a welfare State as ours, the state Government has taken care of protecting the interest of all dependents of the deceased government servant in the matter of payment of pension by providing for distribution of the pension payable to the family as per the benefit provided therein, so much so that where an officer is survived by more than one widow, they all have been given equal shares and on the death of a widow, her eligible minor children have also been given protection by grant of pension of the share of I her mother. I am unable to appreciate the last sentence to Note (i) of subpara (iii) of para 7 of the 1964 schemes, where it provides that "if at the time of her death, a widow leaves no eligible minor child, the payment of her share of the pension will cease. I am unable to appreciate the last sentence to Note (i) of subpara (iii) of para 7 of the 1964 schemes, where it provides that "if at the time of her death, a widow leaves no eligible minor child, the payment of her share of the pension will cease. If this is to be interpreted as suggested by the learned G. P. as well as the learned standing Counsel for the Central government that the share of the widow in the family pension after her death cannot be claimed by other widow and/or the minor children of the other widow by right of survivorship under the provision of the Hindu Law and/or Hindu Succession Act even to the extent it is covered by the definition of the family as contained in sub-para (ii) of para 7, then the said clause is to be held to be arbitrary and discriminatory, inasmuch as, only because the deceased government servant leaves behind more than one widow and the minor children from the other widow, the remaining widow even after the death of the first widow will be deprived of full pension, whereas the deceased government servant, if dies, leaves behind only one widow, then such widow will get full pension as provided in 1964 Scheme for which there cannot be any rationale. I can appreciate that only one pension may be made admissible to the family of the deceased government servant, which can be divided for the benefit of all the members of the family left behind by the deceased government servant who are covered by sub-para (ii) of para 7 of 1964 Scheme, but there cannot be any justification to deny the full pension to surviving member (s) of the family covered by the aforesaid sub-para (ii)of the Scheme. The surviving family of the deceased government servant, as per the definition of the family contained in sub-para (ii) of para 7 of 1964 scheme cannot, in my opinion, be deprived of full pension only because the deceased government servant had left more than one widow. 15. In fact, note (iv) of sub-para. (iii) of para 7 makes it clear that the pension under the scheme will not be payable to more than one member of an officers family at the same time. It will first be admissible to the widow/ widower and thereafter to the eligible minor children. 15. In fact, note (iv) of sub-para. (iii) of para 7 makes it clear that the pension under the scheme will not be payable to more than one member of an officers family at the same time. It will first be admissible to the widow/ widower and thereafter to the eligible minor children. It is thus, evident from the said provision that the only object is to grant only one pension to the family of the deceased government servant covered by sub-para (ii) read with sub-para (iii) of para 7. Any other interpretation would make the last sentence of note 1 ultra vires Articles 14 and 16 (1) of the Constitution of the said view, I am also supported by the law of survivorship as well as the distruction of properties among heirs as per the provision contained in Hindu Succession Act and the Rule contained in the central Civil Service (Pension) Rules and Proviso to rule 54 (7) of the Central civil Service (Pension) Rules, 1972, which provides that "if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of the family pension shall not lapse but shall be payable to the surviving other widows in equal shares. In case, where there is only one such surviving widow, she will be entitled to full share of the widow who dies earlier without a child. 16. This view of mine is also supported by the law laid down by the Apex court, wherein the pension has been held to be property and no longer considered as bounty. If pension is property, as has been held by the Apex Court and the same is admissible to the surviving members of the family as per para 7 of the 1964 Scheme, there cannot be any reason not to follow the law of survivorship as per Personal law and the law of succession, which are covered by the definition of family for the purpose of the Scheme as contained in sub-para (ii)of Para 7. 17. In any view of the matter, the pension is payable on the consideration of past service rendered by the Government servant. Payability of the family pension is basically on the self same consideration. 17. In any view of the matter, the pension is payable on the consideration of past service rendered by the Government servant. Payability of the family pension is basically on the self same consideration. Since person is linked with past service and the avowed purpose of Pension Rule is to provide sustenance, the denial of the full pension to the surviving widow cannot, in my opinion, have any justification particularly in the absence of any fault of such widow. The purpose for which family pension is provided is frustrated if the surviving widow and/or the minor, children born from her are excluded from the benefit of the full family pension even after the death of other widow (s) or non-availability of minor child from her/their. The benefit of the scheme is available for providing special security to the family of the deceased government servant on consideration of the past service rendered by him and not to the deceased government servant for whose deeds/misdeeds on account of having more than one wife the surviving widow should be denied the benefit of full pension available under the Scheme. As I have already noticed above, under the provisions of 1964 Scheme one pension has been made admissible to the family of the deceased government servant, which can be divided for the benefit of all the members of the family left behind by the deceased government servant, who are covered by sub-para (ii) of para 7 of the said scheme. But there cannot be any justification to deny the full pension to the surviving member (s)of the family covered by sub-para (ii) of para 7 of the Scheme. Hence, in my opinion, the limitation put under Note 1. quoted in para 10 above from getting full pension by the surviving widow and or the minor children from her, suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and discriminations and cannot be supported any nexus or for reasonable classifiedtions. The said limitation in thus, ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and cannot be sustained. 18. A contention was also advanced on behalf of the State that in view of the provision of the Hindu Marriage Act, a surviving widow of the deceased Government Servant, unless is legally wedded wife, she cannot be held to be entitled for grant of family pension under the 1964 Scheme. 18. A contention was also advanced on behalf of the State that in view of the provision of the Hindu Marriage Act, a surviving widow of the deceased Government Servant, unless is legally wedded wife, she cannot be held to be entitled for grant of family pension under the 1964 Scheme. I have my doubt about the said stand of the learned G. P. appearing on behalf of the state. Para 7 of the Scheme itself clarifies as to who will be entitled for payment of family pension. The only prohibition in regard to the above in the said para 7 appears to be that marriage after retirement is not to be recognised for the purpose of the Scheme and widow/widower upto the date of death or remarriage whichever is earlier be only entitled for pension. The order prohibition regarding applicability of the Scheme is in regard to adopted child after retirement. The Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Bhagwanti V/s. Union of india, reported in 1989 (4) S. C. C.507, while dealing with the provision contained in Rule 54 (4) (b) of the C. C. S. (Pension) Rules, 1972, under which the claim of the petitioners to family pension was rejected by the department concerned on the ground that they were not covered by the expression family which the definition of the said Rule, which excluded the spouse, who married a Government servant after the latters retirement and children born after retirement, held the said provision as unconstitutional and arbitrary. The court found that the consideration upon which proper pension is admissible or the benefit of the family pension has been extended do not justify the distinction envisaged in the definition of family by keeping the post-retrial spouses out of it and the same cannot be supported by nexus on reasonable classification. However, in the instant case, i do not consider the necessity of going into the said question in further detail, as it is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased government servant. 19. As regards the provident fund deed of the deceased husband of the petitioner, there appears to be no dispute by the respondents, nor there appears to be any objections raised by any other eligible member of the family. 19. As regards the provident fund deed of the deceased husband of the petitioner, there appears to be no dispute by the respondents, nor there appears to be any objections raised by any other eligible member of the family. As such, in my opinion, there cannot be any justification to deny the same to the petitioner and in fact, withholding of the same for such a longtime since the death of the deceased government servant in the year 1983, entitled her for payment of penal interest besides the statutory interest and the costs. 20. In the result, the writ application is allowed. The respondents are directed to pay the full family pension to the petitioner on account of death of her deceased husband since after the death of his first wife on 10-10-1992 till date and continue thereupon as per the rules. The Collector, Patna is also directed to get the entire Provident fund dues of the deceased husband of the petitioner calculated along with statutory interest and also penal interest at the rate of 10 per cent and pay the same within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this judgment/order. The State is also liable to pay cost to the petitioner, which is qualified at Rs.2,000, which shall also be paid along with the aforementioned dues within the said period. Petition Allowed.