JUDGMENT 1. - Heard Mr. M. Mridul, Sr. Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. A.K. Khatri, learned counsel for the respondents State. 2. One Shri Bhairon Singh an officer from the cadre of Rajasthan Administrative Services died on 24.6.74 leaving behind the petitioners Smt. Basant Kumar and Smt. Arju Kanwar. The family pension for the wives of late Bhairon Singh was determined as Rs. 93/-. The pension was paid to both the wives in equal shares i.e. Rs. 46.50 to each of them. On revision by order dated 20.10.87 it was enhanced to Rs. 300/- per month. Both the petitioners were paid Rs. 300/- per month. In the year 1996, the petitioners were informed that each one of them have been paid family pension at the rate of Rs. 300/- per month by mistake. The pension was to be divided in equal shares between the two and each one of them was entitled to Rs. 150/- per month. Each one of the petitioners have been paid excess amount of Rs. 27,949/- excess. The petitioners have been informed that the pension amount payable to them shall be adjusted towards the arrears of amount due from them. Thus, the pension has not been disbursed to the petitioners w.e.f. 14.5.96. The State has taken the stand that there was inadvertent mistake in issuing the P.P.O. for Rs. 300/- to each of the petitioners. Inspite of the fact that they are only entitled to equal share of the pension, they deliberately received the same. Thus, they are under an obligation to refund the amount received in excess. 3. It is contended by Mr. M. Mridul, Sr. Advocate that both the petitioners being wives of late Bhairon Singh are entitled to full family pension. It is also submitted that since the Department on their own started paying Rs. 300/- per month as a family pension to each of the petitioners, no recovery can be made from them. On the other hand it is submitted by Mr. A.K. Khatri, learned counsel for the respondents that as per Rule 268F the amount of pension is to be paid in equal share to the widows of the deceased Government servant. As regards recovery, it is supported on the ground that they have received the amount knowing well that they were not entitled. 4. I have considered the rival contentions. A.K. Khatri, learned counsel for the respondents that as per Rule 268F the amount of pension is to be paid in equal share to the widows of the deceased Government servant. As regards recovery, it is supported on the ground that they have received the amount knowing well that they were not entitled. 4. I have considered the rival contentions. Rule 268F of the Rajasthan Service Rule provides that in case where the Government servant is survived by more than one widows, the persons shall be paid the family pension in equal shares. The rule appears to be in consonance with the provisions of Hindu Succession Act which provides equal shares for the co-widows as successors of the deceased husband. The public policy also does not encourage more than one wife. In view of this each of the petitioners are only entitled to the equal shares of the amount of family pension determined by the State. 5. As far as the question of recovery is concerned, it is not the case of the respondents that they have received excess amount by misrepresentation or by any other wrongful method. Both the ladies are at an advance age of 75 & 63 years respectively. The recovery would cause a great hardship to them. There is no fault on their part. In view of this the recovery of the excess amount is arbitrary and unjust. I am fortified in my view by the decision of the Apex Court in Sahib Ram v. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in 1995(1) SCT 668 (SC) : 1995 Supp.(1) S.C.C. 18 . 6. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The order of recovery of the excess amount paid from each of the petitioners is quashed and set aside. Each of the petitioners shall be entitled to equal share of the family pension fixed as per the prevalent pension rules applicable to the petitioners. No order as to costs.Petition allowed. *******