ORAL ORDER The basic question arises in the present writ petition is with regard to share of the three minor children from the second wife in respect of family pension. So far as other payments are concerned, the department has agreed to divide equally amongst the first wife and the three children from the second marriage. It remains un-rebutted that late Madan Mohan Thakur first married Manorma Thakur, who could not bear any child. He then married Nidhi Thaklur, from whom he has three children being two daughters and one son. All of whom were minors when he died. Board has earlier resolved to divide all death- cum- retiral dues between the first wife and the three children equally, which would have included the family pension as well. It has now decided that family pension can only be paid to one person and the said person would naturally be the first wife. In these proceedings Manorma Thakur, the first wife who has been made party, has appeared. 2. The question is whether family pension is to be divided or not ? In my view, the earlier decision of the Board, which was taken in the year 2003, which is Annexure 3 to the writ petition, was correct. Family pension is not just for the wife. Its nomenclature goes for family pension. It is for the family. In the case of Mandan Mohan Thakur, his family consists of his wife and his three children from the second wife even though with the consent of the parties it is a void marriage and cannot be given effect to in view of Section 23 of the Contract Act for the purposes of securing her any difficulty under the Service Contract. Thus, if the family consists of first wife and the three children from the second wife, the Board’s decision, as per Annexure 4, to pay the family pension only to the first wife that is step mother of the children cannot be understood. Are the children to be left out totally ? While the Board agreed that death cum retiral dues have to be shared equally by four persons, I am surprised why it has taken a legalistic view that family pension cannot be proportionate. Such a legalistic view would deprive the children of the pension, which they were entitled to. Are the children to be left out totally ? While the Board agreed that death cum retiral dues have to be shared equally by four persons, I am surprised why it has taken a legalistic view that family pension cannot be proportionate. Such a legalistic view would deprive the children of the pension, which they were entitled to. Thus, I have no hesitation in setting aside Annexure 4 in so far as it holds that family pension cannot be bifurcated and has to be paid only to single wife. 3. I, therefore, direct that the order of Building Construction Department, as communicated to the petitioner, under memo no.6481, dated 18.8.2010, as contained in Annexure 4, is set aside only in relation to non division of family pension. The department is directed to divide the pension into equal part payable to eligible claimants. I may clarify that as per Bihar Pension Rules deceased employee’s children are entitled to family pension till they attain the age of 25 years or they marry whichever is earlier. Thus, proportionate of family pension payable as between the four claimants would depend upon each of the children but they would remain equally as amongst the eligible persons. 4. Let department act accordingly and clear all arrears of pension and pensionary benefits within a period of two months from today. 5. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of.