ORDER : Seeking a direction upon the respondent no. 2 Executive Engineer, National Highway Division, Hazaribagh to enter the name of the petitioner as nominee of her husband in his Service Excerpts, the present writ petition has been filed. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of respondent no. 3 however, the respondent no. 3 has contracted a second marriage and therefore, to avoid future complication for grant of family pension, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. It is not in dispute that the husband of the petitioner is still alive. He superannuated from service in June, 2014. The parties have been blessed with a son namely, Abhimanyu Pandey. The petitioner has filed Maintenance Case being M. Case No. 33 of 1991 in which the Court has directed payment of Rs. 400/for maintenance of the petitioner and Rs. 400 for maintenance of his son. Against order dated 01.12.1999 in M. Case No. 33 of 1991, the respondent no. 3 preferred Cr. Rev. No. 01 of 2000 which was allowed vide order dated 08.04.2002 however, Cr.M.P. No. 184 of 2003 filed by the petitioner, has been allowed by this Court. The said order has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 3717 of 2004. The petitioner however, came to know that in the Service Excerpts of the respondent no. 3 the name of one Asha Devi has been entered as nominee who is not the legally wedded wife of respondent no. 3. 4. In the writ petition the petitioner has sought a direction upon respondent no. 2 so that she may avail the benefit of family pension. The grant of family pension can be ordered only after the death of the employee. Since respondent no. 3 is still alive, no family pension can be granted to the petitioner. On an apprehension that after the death of respondent no. 3 a dispute may arise with respect to entitlement of family pension, no direction can be issued by this Court. 5. I find no merit in the writ petition and accordingly, it is dismissed.