Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Deceased Bashudeo Narayan Singh at the time of his death left two widows, namely, Yashoda Devi and the present petitioner, Lakhpati Devi. After his death, family pension was paid to Smt. Yashoda Devi, who had expired on 16.8.2000. Since after the death, the petitioner claiming herself to be be second wife is requiring the respondents to pay her full family pension which was paid to Smt. Yashoda Devi, it appears from the records that the respondents took up the matter and one of the Superintendent of Excise reported to the Commissioner, Excise that the present petitioner would be entitled to 50% of the family pension. However, the respondents in paragraph 11 of their counter have submitted that a male Hindu Government servant would be entitled to keep only one wife and if she is aiive he cannot marry with another woman. According to them, as the petitioner claims herself to be the second wife, she would not be entitled to any pension. 3. In the present case, nobody has challenged the status of the petitioner of her being the second wife. The respondents do not say that the petitioner married to Bashudeo Narayan Singh after coming into force of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is only under Cection 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 that a person was not entitled to marry if the spouse of such person was already alive. It is nobodys case that the petitioner married after 1956. 4. The petitioner has placed her strong reliance upon a Single Bench judgment of this Court in the matter of Shanta Sinha V/s. The State of Bihar & Ors. [ 1997(1) PLJR 416 ]. It is contended that the pension being a right can be survived and succeeded by the successors and as in the present matter the second widow has succeeded and survived the first widow, she would be entitled to 100 per cent pension. Learned counsel for the respondents sticking to the stand taken in the counter affidavit says that the petitioner being the second wife would not be entitled to the family pension. 5. After going through the judgment in the matter of Shanta Sinha (supra), ! must immediately observe that the said judgment fully covers the field. Learned counsel for the respondents sticking to the stand taken in the counter affidavit says that the petitioner being the second wife would not be entitled to the family pension. 5. After going through the judgment in the matter of Shanta Sinha (supra), ! must immediately observe that the said judgment fully covers the field. In the said judgment, the High Court has observed that the surviving family of the deceased Government servant cannot be deprived of full pension only because the deceased Government servant had left more than one widow. In light of the said judgment, the writ application filed by the petitioner is allowed. She is held entitled to 100% pension. 6. Let the respondents take up necessary steps and make payment of the pension to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of submission of copy of this order. If payment is made within the period aforesaid then that would be end of the matter for the arrears, but if the payment is not made within the afore said period then the respondents wouid be obliged to pay 9% interest on the arrears from the date of accrual of the right upto the date of payment. 7. The writ application stands disposed of.