Judgment :- 1. The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of prohibition, restraining the respondents from disbursing retiral benefits to the respondent No.4 in view of the representation dated 18.11.2011 filed by the petitioner. 2. The writ petition as framed is totally misconceived, as no direction can be issued to the respondents 1 to 3 directing them not to pay the retiral benefits to the retired employees, merely because the petitioner claims to be the wife of retiree. 3. It is for the petitioner to claim her right as wife by moving appropriate petition before the Civil Court to seek appropriate orders for attachment, etc. after establishing her right of maintenance. 4. It is admitted case, that the petitioner has already moved the petition in Civil Court, therefore, it is not understood, how parallel proceedings can continue in this Court only for claiming interim direction pending proceedings in the civil Court. 5. It is pleaded case of the petitioner that she solemnized marriage with the respondent No.4 on 19.6.1978 as per Hindu rites and customs and that six sons were born out of this wedlock. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent No.4 has disputed the relationship with the petitioner and stated that the petitioner is not the wife of respondent No.4 7. It is the case of the petitioner that after the birth of six sons, respondent No.4 had left the matrimonial home and started living with Tmt.Lakshmi inspite of subsisting marriage with the petitioner. For the reason best known to the petitioner, Tmt.Lakshmi had not been impleaded as party to this writ petition. 8. It is submitted that she is unable to maintain herself, and is bringing up her children by doing labour work. It is again not disclosed as to why she has not taken any legal remedy to claim maintenance from the respondent No.4 by taking appropriate proceedings, specially when it is admitted case of the petitioner that Tmt.Lakshmi has given birth two daughters from the alliance of the respondent No.4. 9. Tmt. Lakshmi is stated to be already married having one child from previous marriage. It is alleged that the respondent No.4 is guilty of bigamy, therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 are bound to take disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No.4. 10. 9. Tmt. Lakshmi is stated to be already married having one child from previous marriage. It is alleged that the respondent No.4 is guilty of bigamy, therefore, the respondents 1 to 3 are bound to take disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No.4. 10. This plea is again misconceived, as admittedly, the respondent No.4 has retired from service, therefore, the respondent No.1 to 3 have no jurisdiction to take any disciplinary proceedings against the respondent No.4. 11. The petitioner has further alleged that Tmt.Lakshmi had taken all the retiral benefits by forging the signatures of the respondent No.4, and by bribing the officials. It is surprised that the petitioner is making serious allegations against Tmt.Lakshmi without impleading her as party to the writ petition, therefore no notice of these allegations can be taken. 12. It is submitted by the petitioner that her name is not included in the pension proposal. The allegations levelled in this writ petition can only be said to be wild imagination of the petitioner, which cannot be taken note of in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Even if the averments made in the writ petition and taken on its face value, no ground to invoke writ jurisdiction is made out, as on the facts alleged, this Court cannot direct payment of reitral benefits to petitioner in preference to respondent No.4. 13. The learned counsel for the petitioner on the pleadings referred to above, vehemently contends that the respondent No.4 being the husband of the petitioner is bound to provide maintenance to her and include her name in pension papers. On being questioned about maintainability of this writ petition, learned counsel merely said that petitioner is a poor lady therefore, she is entitled to share in retiral benefits. 14. This contention is against law, as the remedy with the petitioner is to approach the appropriate legal forum, for grant of maintenance, but certainly not to file writ petition, seeking direction to the respondents 1 to 3 to disburse the retiral benefits to the petitioner. 15. As already observed above, the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that civil suit has been filed for necessary relief, therefore prayed that during pendency of the suit, the interim order granted by this Court should be allowed to continue, 16. This prayer again not sustainable in law, as this Court cannot grant interim direction pending civil suit. 15. As already observed above, the learned counsel for the petitioner admitted that civil suit has been filed for necessary relief, therefore prayed that during pendency of the suit, the interim order granted by this Court should be allowed to continue, 16. This prayer again not sustainable in law, as this Court cannot grant interim direction pending civil suit. The petitioner can move appropriate application in the pending suit. 17. At the sake repetition, it may be mentioned that the respondents 1 to 3 are bound under law to release retiral benefits to the respondent No.4, and the petitioner had no legal right to file a writ of prohibition. The petitioner at best, can seek appropriate protection by moving application in pending suit. 18. The writ petition being totally misconceived, is ordered to be dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No cost.