ORDER 1. The petitioner in the present writ application seeks direction for payment of pension and gratuity upon the death of late Bhutta Rai who was an unskilled Khalshi in the erstwhile Bihar State Electricity Board. The said Bhutta Rai is said to have died on 4.3.2010 in harness. The petitioner claims to be his legally married wife. 2. From the pleading in the present proceeding, it appears that one Soni Devi was the first wife of late Bhutta Rai and she was made nominee in the General Provident Fund document. However, vide letter dated 29.6.2004 he had applied for change of the nominee in the G.P.F. document on the basis that his first wife had left him and residing with another person. 3. A supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondent Nos. 2 to 9. It has been stated in the supplementary counter affidavit that accordingly the amount of General Provident Fund and Group Saving Scheme have been paid to the petitioner on the basis of request for change in the name of the nominee made by Late Bhutta Rai. It has further been stated in the supplementary counter affidavit that the petitioner thereafter has submitted succession certificate issued by the Court of Administrator General of Bihar for a sum of Rs. 1,53,882/- which was payable to the late Bhutta Rai against leave encashment. The said amount of Rs.1,53,882/- has also been paid to the petitioner. Now the petitioner claims that she being the legally married wife of late Bhutta Rai, entitled for family pension and gratuity. 4. An Interlocutory application vide I.A. No. 7464 of 2014 has been filed by one Naresh Kumar Rai son of Ram Pragas Rai claiming to be the nephew of late Bhutta Rai. The petitioner’s status as the widow of late Bhutta Rai has been disputed in the Interlocutory Application, seeking intervention in the writ application, on the ground that during the life time of Soni Devi, the petitioner could not have married the petitioner and according to him, the petitioner of I.A. No. 7464 of 2014 (Naresh Kumar Rai) is the real legal heir of the deceased Bhutta Rai and is accordingly entitled for family pension and gratuity as per Rules. 5. 5. In my opinion, this is disputed question of fact whether the petitioner acquired the status of wife/widow of late Bhutta Rai as there is nothing on record that said Bhutta Rai had married the petitioner. The question may arise as to whether late Bhutta Rai had married the petitioner during the life time of his first wife Soni Devi. These are disputed question of fact which can be adjudicated only on the basis of evidence to be adduced in a proper proceeding. Such disputed questions of fact cannot be adjudicated upon in a present proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This application is therefore, disposed of with an observation that the parties will be at liberty to approach/pursue their remedies before appropriate forum for payment of pension and gratuity consequent upon death of late Bhutta Rai.