ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of direction to the respondents to get her name enter in the pension paper of respondent no. 4, who happens to be her husband. 2. The undisputed facts are that the petitioner is first legally wedded wife of respondent no. 4 but respondent no. 4 did not mention the name and photograph of petitioner in his pension paper rather he mentioned the name and photograph of another lady to deprive the petitioner from getting family pension. 3. Petitioner filed an application before the respondent no. 2 as well as respondent no. 3 enclosing all the relevant documents to prove that she is first legally wedded wife of respondent no. 4 and thereafter, respondent no. 3 issued a letter to respondent no. 2 to inform about the decision of inclusion of name of the petitioner in pension paper of respondent no. 4 but nothing was done and, accordingly, she filed the present writ petition. 4. It is an admitted position that petitioner filed Miscellaneous Case No. 18 F of 2009 in the court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Daltonganj, State of Jharkhand under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and the aforesaid case was ended on the basis of joint compromise petition filed on behalf of the parties and, accordingly, respondent no. 4 was directed to pay rupees two thousand per month to the petitioner as maintenance. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents no. 4 and 5 and it has been pleaded in the counter affidavit that petitioner deserted the respondent no. 4 and started living at her Naihar since 1980. It has further been pleaded that respondent no. 4 gave the name of his mother in the pension paper and after her death he gave the name of respondent no. 5, who happens to be wife of respondent no. 4. It has further been pleaded that there is no relation between the respondent no. 4 and petitioner since last 33-34 years. It has further been pleaded that respondent no. 4 is a handicapped person and depends upon respondent no. 5, who takes care of respondent no. 4. It has further been pleaded that when respondent no. 4. It has further been pleaded that there is no relation between the respondent no. 4 and petitioner since last 33-34 years. It has further been pleaded that respondent no. 4 is a handicapped person and depends upon respondent no. 5, who takes care of respondent no. 4. It has further been pleaded that when respondent no. 4 became completely handicapped in the year 2000, the petitioner filed one partition suit bearing Partition Suit No. 20/2005 and with all fairness the respondent no. 4 transferred 1/3rd share of his property in favour of the petitioner and also declared that after his death entire properties will be divided equally between the petitioner and respondent no. 5 as half share to each. Furthermore, it has been pleaded that petitioner filed Miscellaneous Case No. 18 F of 2009 before the Principal Court, Palamu and in the aforesaid case, respondent no. 4 filed joint compromise petition on 31.05.2010 and on the basis of aforesaid joint compromise petition, the case was disposed of on 31.05.2010. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is first legally wedded wife of respondent no. 4 and the aforesaid fact has not been denied by the respondents no. 4 and 5 and furthermore, it is admitted case of the respondents that respondent no. 5 is second wife of respondent no 4 and the marriage of respondent no. 5 had taken place with respondent no. 4 in the lifetime of petitioner and, therefore, the marriage of respondent no. 5 is ab initio void in accordance with Hindu Marriage Act and, therefore, the name of petitioner ought to have been entered in the pension paper of respondent no. 4. It is further contended by him that according to government notification of the year 1996, the second wife is not entitled for family pension. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that recently Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1842 of 2012 decided a case involving almost similar issue and directed the concerned authorities to get the name of first wife enter in pension paper of a government employee. He also referred decision of Amlawati Devi vs. State of Bihar and Anr. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that recently Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1842 of 2012 decided a case involving almost similar issue and directed the concerned authorities to get the name of first wife enter in pension paper of a government employee. He also referred decision of Amlawati Devi vs. State of Bihar and Anr. Reported in 2003(2) PLJR, 218 in which Division Bench of this Court has held that if a government employee marries a second wife during the life time of his first wife, the second wife will not be entitled for pension but the minor children born from her will be entitled to family pension till they attain majority. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents no. 4 and 5 submits that admittedly, the petitioner deserted the respondent no. 4 since last 35 years and she has been residing separately from respondent no. 4. He further submits that prior to issuance of circular of the year 1996, there was a circular of the State Government to this effect that when a Government employee is survived by more than one widow, the pension will be paid to them in equal share and on the death of a widow her share of the pension will become payable to her eligible minor child and if at the time of her death, a widow leaves no eligible minor child, the payment of her share of the pension will cease. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 and 5 further submits that again the aforesaid circular was amended by the State Government in the year 1996 making it clear that second wife will not be entitled for family pension but right to get family pension had already accrued to the respondent no. 5 before coming into force the circular of 1996 as the marriage of respondent no. 5 had already taken place with respondent no. 4 much prior to coming into force the circular of the year 1996 and it is well settled principle of law that a right, which has already accrued, cannot be snatched by a subsequent event and, therefore, respondent no. 5 is, too, entitle to get family pension. 5 had already taken place with respondent no. 4 much prior to coming into force the circular of the year 1996 and it is well settled principle of law that a right, which has already accrued, cannot be snatched by a subsequent event and, therefore, respondent no. 5 is, too, entitle to get family pension. In support of his contention, he referred decision of Smt. Kulwanti Devi vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2009(2) BBCJ, V-279 in which it has been held by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court that on death of a pension holder, State is under obligation to pay family pension and that obligation cannot be reduced except in contingencies statutorily provided. 10. Certain facts are admitted in this case. It is an admitted position that petitioner is first legally wedded wife of respondent no. 4 and furthermore, the marriage of respondent no. 5 with respondent no. 4 took place in the year 1973 i.e. in the lifetime of petitioner. It is also an admitted position that the relation of the petitioner with respondent no. 4 is not cordial and she has been residing separately from respondent no. 4 since last 30-35 years. It is also an admitted position that respondent no. 4 mentioned the name of his mother in the pension book and subsequently, the name of respondent no. 5 was given in pension book after the death of mother of respondent no. 4. It is also an admitted position that respondent no. 4 did not mention the name of petitioner in pension book as the relation of the respondent no. 4 with petitioner was not cordial and she was not residing with the respondent no. 4. 11. Now, the question arises for determination as to whether the name of petitioner should be entered in pension book of respondent no. 4 or not. In this connection, it is necessary to refer paragraph no. 7 of Family Pension Scheme for State Government employees, 1964 which requires the non-gazetted employees to furnish details of their family and sub paragraph (ii) of paragraph 7 of the aforesaid scheme says that family for purpose of the Scheme will include the following relatives of the officer:- (a) wife, in the case of a male officer; (b) husband, in the case of a female officer; (c) minor sons; and ; (d) unmarried minor daughters. 12. 12. Therefore, it is obvious from perusal of aforesaid paragraph of the scheme that there was an obligation on respondent no. 4 to mention the name of petitioner in his pension book as it is admitted position that petitioner is first legally wedded wife of respondent no. 4. No doubt, petitioner has been residing separately from respondent no. 4 but there is nothing on the record to show that marriage of petitioner with respondent no. 4 was ever dissolved and, therefore, still she is legally married wife of respondent no. 4. 13. In the case of Smt. Kulwanti Devi (Supra), the issue was different. In the aforesaid case, the second marriage of government employee had taken place prior to coming into force of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and after death of government employee, the Accountant General permitted division of family pension half and half in between the two widows of government employee. Later on, after the death of first wife of the government employee, the Accountant General refused to give full pension to second wife on the ground of circular issued by the State Government in the department of finance being Circular No. 9505 dated 03.10.1964 but a coordinate Bench of this Court declared the Circular No. 9505 dated 03.10.1964 ultra vires and held that the second wife was entitled to receive full pension of her deceased husband after the death of first wife of her husband. 14. As I have already referred that in LPA No. 1842 of 2012 (Smt. Seeta Devi vs. The State of Bihar and ors.) almost similar question was involved and the Division Bench of this court came to conclusion that the name of first wife in the pension book of her husband should be entered and her right cannot be snatched only on the ground that her relation with her husband was not cordial. 15. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 4 and 5 has raised a question that the right accrued to respondent no. 5 cannot be snatched on the basis of subsequent events but in my view, presently the aforesaid issue is not involved in this matter because in the present petition, the petitioner has only prayed to get her name enter in pension book of respondent no. 4 and, therefore, in my view, this writ petition is liable to be allowed. 16. 5 cannot be snatched on the basis of subsequent events but in my view, presently the aforesaid issue is not involved in this matter because in the present petition, the petitioner has only prayed to get her name enter in pension book of respondent no. 4 and, therefore, in my view, this writ petition is liable to be allowed. 16. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed and the respondent no. 2 is directed to enter the name of petitioner in pension book of respondent no. 4 within a month from today and shall send the aforesaid information to respondent no. 3 and after getting the necessary documents, the respondent no. 3 shall take appropriate steps in this regard in accordance with rules and regulations. However, it is made clear that grant of family pension to petitioner as well as respondent no. 5 at the relevant time shall be considered by the concerned respondents in accordance with rules and regulations and this Court is not inclined to make any observation on the aforesaid point at this stage.