Judgment Per Amitav K. Gupta, J : The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment/ order dated 15.05.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S)No.3538 of 2013, whereby the aforesaid writ application was disposed of with the certain directions given therein. 2. The case of the appellants in the aforesaid writ application, was that the appellant (Asha Devi) was married to Ram Khelawan Pahalwan (since dead) on 12.04.1991, and late Ram Khelawan Pahalwan died in harness on 07.02.2012 while working on the post of Security Guard in Central Electric Store, Deoghar and he was in the services of respondent Nos.1 to 4; that her late husband suffered brain haemorrhage and was under medical treatment till his demise on 07.02.2012; that the appellant looked after him and nursed him and borrowed money to meet the expenses of his treatment; that the deceased is survived by the appellant, her daughter, Priyanka Kumari and two minor sons namely, Santosh Kumar and Suraj Kumar respectively (appellant Nos.2 to 4); that her late husband had executed a registered Will in her favour for which, Probate Case No.05 of 2012 was filed and is pending in the court below, in which respondent Nos.5 and 6 have been arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. Janki Devi, first wife of late Ram Khelawan Panhalwan and Choudhary Charan Yadav, son of late Ram Khelawan Pahalwan respectively; that the respondent No.3 Phool Kumari Devi, married daughter of late Ram Khelawan Pahalwan has entered her appearance. That the respondent No.5, who is the first wife and respondent No.6, the son and her daughter Phool Kumari Devi, had deserted her late husband prior to the marriage of the appellant; that the appellant No.2 has attained the age of majority but still unmarried; that Janki Devi, first wife of the deceased had filed a Maintenance Case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, wherein maintenance of Rs.800/-per month was allowed to her, against which, her late husband had filed Criminal Revision No.802 of 2009, whereby the maintenance amount was fixed at Rs.600/-per month by order dated 04.04.2011 and in the said revision, it has been admitted that her late husband has been looked after by the present appellant. It is averred that earlier Janki Devi had filed W.P. (S) No.7446 of 2012 on 11.12.2012 but the appellants were not made party in the aforesaid writ and after passing of the order in the said writ the appellant had filed review application, which was dismissed giving liberty to the appellant to approach before the appropriate forum for redressal of the grievances. It is stated that appellant No.2 (Priyanka Kumari) had filed an application for compassionate appointment before the Executive Engineer, Central Electric Store, Daburgram, Deoghar on 20.05.2013 and the appellant Nos.1 and 2 had also filed representation on 17.06.2013 before the respondent Nos.1 to 4 for the payment of death-cum-retiral benefits, but no of-let was paid by the respondents, whereupon the appellants filed the aforesaid writ application by which the impugned order was passed. 3. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned order inter alia on the grounds that the learned Single Judge did not consider that a Probate Case was pending between the parties for the registered Will, which ought to have been respected by the respondents; that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 had also filed W.P.(S) No.5423 of 2013 for quashing the order contained in memo No.4662 dated 17.08.2013, passed i acres n pursuance to the order dated 08.01.2013 in W.P.(S) No.7446 of 2013 for payment of the death-cum-retiral dues and the appointment of the respondent No.6 on compassionate ground; that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were not cooperating in the Probate Case by not appearing in the court below; that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the respondent No.6 i.e. the petitioner No.2 had filed W.P.(S) No.5423 of 2013, and was being considered for compassionate appointment, and respondent Nos.5 and 6 have fixed source of income whereas the appellant No.1, who has a unmarried daughter and two minor children, should have been granted family pension + Rs.5 lakhs + 50% of the total retiral benefits in view of the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant on 20.03.2014; that the learned Single Judge did not take into account that if death-cum-retiral benefits are disbursed to the respondent Nos.5 and 6 then the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss and will be on the streets leading a life of beggary and destitution and the order should have been passed in view the proposal given by the appellant in the supplementary affidavit. 4. It has further been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that Janki Devi, the first wife of the deceased and respondent No.5 had deserted her late husband and the appellants looked and took care of the deceased when he was lying on the death bed and the appellant has to look after her minor children and also to provide for the marriage for the unmarried daughter, accordingly, it is urged that the impugned/order be set aside and the entire family pension should be given to the appellants as the respondent -Jharkhand State Electricity Board (J.S.E.B.) has not produced the Circular, which was relied upon for disbursement of retiral benefit. 5. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board (J.S.E.B.), has submitted that as per the Circular, which was circulated by Memo No.Pen – 103/64-9505 dated 03.10.1964, it has been stated that if the officer is survived by more than one widow, the pension will be paid to them in equal share and accordingly by the impugned order the said retiral dues and family pension were apportioned by giving 50% to each of the first wife Janki Devi and the second wife i.e Asha Devi, the present appellant. That the compassionate appointment of the elder son of the first wife is being considered as he is the senior most legal heirs in terms of the decision in the case of Raj Kishore Kumar Vs. State of Bihar & Ors reported in 2009 (79) AIC 524 [PAT.HC.]. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.5 and 6 has submitted that the respondent No.5 -Janki Devi i.e the first wife of the deceased never deserted the husband but in fact it is a case of abandonment of respondent No.5 by her deceased husband. That she was not being paid maintenance accordingly she had filed the maintenance case, because she had to look after her son and daughter; that in fact for performing of the marriage of the daughter of the respondent No.5, a sale deed was executed with respect to 1.20½ acres of land which explains the execution of sale deed as mentioned in Cr. Revision application at Annexure – 3; that the impugned order has been passed keeping in view the Circular of the Jharkhand State Electricity Board and is in accordance with law thus, requires no interference by this court. 7. Having heard submissions of the learned counsel, it is to be noted that attempts were also made by the court in course of hearing of the matter for amicable settlement of the dispute between the parties and they were given time to reach or agreeable and acceptable terms for disbursement of the retiral dues, unfortunately the parties could not reach to an amicable settlement. Looking into the order passed in Cr. Looking into the order passed in Cr. Revision No.802 of 2009, it appears that the deceased had executed sale deed in respect of 1.20½ acres of land and the deceased husband of both the appellant and the respondent No.5 was suffering from paralytic attack and was a disabled person and respondent No.5 had deposed that she was in possession of the land and was carrying on agricultural operation therein which is mentioned in the recital of the Cr. Revision; that the respondent No.5 had admitted that her husband was a disabled person and was being looked after by the appellant Asha Devi and the respondent No.5 was in occupation of part of the house along with respondent No.6 and her son-in-law, and this fact has not been controverted by her. It is admitted that respondent No.5 was being paid maintenance of Rs.600/-per month and she was also enjoying the agriculture income by cultivation of the land sold to her. In the counter affidavit, filed by the Jharkhand State Electricity Board in W.P.(S) No.5423 of 2013, reference has been made to Note (9) of sub – clause (iii) of clause (7) of the Family Pension Scheme, 1964, circulated by the memo No.Pen-103/64-9505 dated 03.10.1964, which reads as under :- “Where an officer is survived by more than one widow, the pension will be paid to them in equal share. On the death of a widow her share of pension will become payable to her eligible minor child. If at a time of her death, a widow leaves no eligible minor child, the payment of her share of the pension will cease.” Thus, in view of the Circular, the learned Single Judge had directed for payment of 50% each to the first wife i.e. Janki Devi -respondent No.5 and second wife-Asha Devi-appellant no.1 of the Gratuity, G.P.F, death-cum-retiral benefit and the family pension to be apportioned equally between the appellant -Asha Devi and respondent no.5 - Janki Devi. 8. It is not disputed that Janki Devi, the first wife of the deceased – husband, has been given 1.20½ acres of land, as per recital noted above in the Cr. Revision preferred by the deceased Ram Khelawan Pahalwan and she was also being paid money as maintenance. She has been enjoying the income of the said land and has also solemnized the marriage of her daughter. Revision preferred by the deceased Ram Khelawan Pahalwan and she was also being paid money as maintenance. She has been enjoying the income of the said land and has also solemnized the marriage of her daughter. The eldest son i.e. the respondent No.6, Choudhary Charan Yadav is being considered for compassionate appointment by the respondents in terms of the order passed in the aforesaid impugned order. It is apparent that the appellant, Asha Devi, is saddled with the responsibility of upbringing of the unmarried daughter and has to provide for her marriage expenses in near future. She has also to provide for the expenses and needs of education of her minor sons. She has no fixed source of income and she is burdened with liabilities. 9. Considering the totality of facts and circumstances and to meet the ends of justice, we deem it proper to direct the respondent – Jharkhand State Electricity Board (J.S.E.B.) to pay, (i). 50% of the Gratuity, G.P.F and death-cum-retiral benefits each to the first wife i.e. Janki Devi and second wife i.e. Asha Devi along with statutory interest payable within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (ii). from the 50% of Gratuity, G.P.F and other death-cum-retiral benefits, and other amounts payable to the Janki Devi the amount of Rs.5 lakhs shall be deducted/ apportioned by the J.S.E.B and paid to the second wife i.e. the appellant Asha Devi, so as to meet the marriage expenses of her unmarried daughter and the educational needs of her daughter and minor children. (iii). 50% of the family pension to each of the two wives payable within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. (iv). The case of the first wife's son namely, Choudhary Charan Yadav shall be considered for compassionate appointment in accordance with rules at the earliest, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 10. It is made clear that the direction and observations shall not affect the interest of the parties in the Probate Case pending in the court below. With the aforesaid directions, the order dated 15.05.2014, passed in W.P.(S) No.3538 of 2013 is modified to the extent noted above accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.