Judgment Radha Mohan Prasad, J. 1. The petitioner claims to be widow of Late bhawani Sahay Singh, who died on 21.1.1969 after receiving pension since his retirement. Late Singh was working in the Department of Excise in Gaya district. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that although she approached the authorities several times for payment of family pension, but the same has not been paid. 3. It is contended by Mr. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that an enquiry was held by block Development Officer-cum-Anchal Adhikari, Barahara, Shahabad as to whether the petitioner is the widow of the deceased Government servant and entitled for receiving the family pension. The report (Annexure 2) was submitted on 30.5.1969 by the said Block Development Officer to the treasury Officer, Shahabad, Ara, in which he found that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased government servant and is the legal heir to whom the arrears of pension standing in the name of Shri Singh should be paid, yet she has not been paid the same as well as the family pension. 4. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents No.1 and 2. Learned Standing Counsel No. VI, with reference to paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, submits that under the provisions of the Pension rules, it is required that there must be a succession certificate for proper authority to decide the claim of family pension but in this case the petitioner has no where stated that she was holding the succession certificate and/or she is the only successor of the deceased employee. Thus, the matter has been delayed and it can finally be resolved by the Accountant-General, Bihar. 5. I am unable to appreciate the said stand of the respondents on two grounds. Firstly, it is not stated that the petitioner was even informed about producing the succession certificate and secondly, because there is provision in the Bihar Treasury Code under which the family of the deceased Government servant is required to furnish indemnity bond in support of their claim for payment of post retrial dues of the deceased employee. Thus, it has rightly been submitted by the learned Standing counsel for the Central Government that in fact, there is nothing to be done by the Accountant-General, Bihar, patna unless a necessary sanction order is issued by the concerned authority in the State. 6. Thus, it has rightly been submitted by the learned Standing counsel for the Central Government that in fact, there is nothing to be done by the Accountant-General, Bihar, patna unless a necessary sanction order is issued by the concerned authority in the State. 6. Accordingly, after having heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel No.6 for the state and Mrs. Renuka Sharma, learned standing Counsel for the Central government, the writ application is disposed of with a direction to the commissioner-cum- Secretary, Department of Excise, bihar, Patna (respondent No.1.) and the Assistant commissioner of Excise, Gaya (respondent No.2) to release up to date family pension with entire arrears to the petitioner by issuing necessary sanction order, if she furnishes the required indemnity bond under the provisions of the Treasury Code and/or the succession certificate within two weeks of the receipt of the same. Decided accordingly