JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Shri Ch. Robinchandra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner; Shri K. Jagat, the learned Government Advocate appearing for the State Respondents and Ms. Beedyasaree M., the learned counsel appearing on behalf of Shri S. Rupachandra, the learned ASG for the respondent No. 5. 2. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner praying for releasing the family pension to the petitioner and other retirement benefits for the service rendered by her husband. 3.1 According to the petitioner, her husband (Late) Shri H. Ibohal Singh, during his lifetime had been serving as work-charged Road Mohorrir in the Department of PHE and he was declared permanent and confirmed to the supernuary post of W/C Road Mohorrir w.e.f. 26-06-1972 vide office Order No. 27 dated 23-02-1990 issued by the then Chief Engineer, PHED. Her husband died on 30-04-1986 and during his lifetime, he had rendered service for 23 (twenty three) years 10 (ten) months and 9 (nine) days without any interruption. 3.2 The petitioner’s husband during his lifetime had three, out of which the petitioner is the third wife. The first wife had expired on 28-05-2013 and the second wife had re-married to another person and since the petitioner is the only surviving widow, she is entitled to enjoy the family pension for the service rendered by her husband under the provisions of the Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978. The petitioner being the only surviving widow of (Late) H. Ibohal Singh, Ex-Road Mohorrir, PHE filed an application in the office of the respondent No. 5 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 for furnishing a detailed information about the submission of necessary pension papers by the Administrative Department namely, PHED and other documents required under the pension rules. On 12-12-2013, the office of the Accountant General (A & E), Manipur addressed a letter to the petitioner enclosing therewith the necessary pension papers including the Service Book Vol. 1, 2 and 3. Since the first wife having expired on 28-05-2013, the petitioner filed an application dated 27-01-2014 to the State respondents requesting them to grant her the family pension. On 12-12-2013, the office of the Accountant General (A & E), Manipur addressed a letter to the petitioner enclosing therewith the necessary pension papers including the Service Book Vol. 1, 2 and 3. Since the first wife having expired on 28-05-2013, the petitioner filed an application dated 27-01-2014 to the State respondents requesting them to grant her the family pension. In spite of the pension proposal along with necessary documents being submitted to the office of the Accountant General by the State Government, the office of the Accountant General failed to release the family pension and being aggrieved by the inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 4. The instant writ petition is not contested by the State at all and in their affidavit, it is clearly stated that all pension papers pertaining to petitioner’s husband had already been furnished to the Accountant General, Manipur who is the final authority for grant of pensionary benefits to the employees / families of the Government servants. However, on behalf of the Accountant General, Manipur an affidavit-in-opposition has been filed raising objection for grant of family pension mainly on two points - one, as the petitioner’s husband died before 21-06-1990 while in service and not as a pensioner, family pension is not admissible to the members of his family including the petitioner and two, since the second and the third wife, namely the petitioner were married during the life time of the first wife, the petitioner who is the third wife is not entitled to family pension as a legally wedded wife under the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act [as GI decision (13)] and under the rule 54 of the MCS (Pension) Rules, 1977. 5. As regards the first point, the provisions of the Terminal Rules, 1978 are required to be examined and at the time when the said rules were framed for the first time, there was no provision for payment of family pension. 5. As regards the first point, the provisions of the Terminal Rules, 1978 are required to be examined and at the time when the said rules were framed for the first time, there was no provision for payment of family pension. In the year 1990, the Government of Manipur brought an amendment in the Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978 vide notification dated 21-06-1990 by adding Rule 6(A) below Rule 6 (ii)(b) and the relevant portion of Rule 6(A) is as under : “Rule 6(A) - Family pension as calculated under the Manipur Civil Services Terminal Benefits Rules, 06-06-1991 by adding Rule (Pension) Rules, 1977 as amended from time to time.” The State Government further amended the 1978 vide notification dated 6(B) after Rule 6(A), the relevant portion of which is as under “Rule 6(B) - Terminal Benefit shall also be admissible to the work-charged employees who retired prior to 18-09-1978 but are living on the date of issue of this order, from 18-09-1978 and also family pension to the families or workcharged employees who died prior to 21-06-1990 but are living on the date of issue of this order.” To enjoy the benefits of the provisions of Rules 6(B) of the said rules, two conditions are required to be fulfilled - one, the workcharged employee must have died prior to 21-06-1990 and two, the families of the work-charged employee must be living on the date of issue of the order, i.e., 06-06-1991. In the present case, the petitioner’s husband had died on 30-04-1986, i.e., prior to the 21-06-1990 and on the date of issue of the order, i.e., 06-06-1991, the families of the work-charged employee namely the petitioner and even the first wife, were living. Shri Ch. Robinchandra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment and order dated 12-05-2015 passed by this court in W.P. (C) No. 80 of 2011 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to that of the said case which has been allowed by this court granting benefits of family pension. Robinchandra, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment and order dated 12-05-2015 passed by this court in W.P. (C) No. 80 of 2011 to contend that the facts and circumstances of the present case are similar to that of the said case which has been allowed by this court granting benefits of family pension. In the said case, this court has observed that the conjoint reading of both the provisions of Rule 6(A) and Rule 6(B) makes it very clear that family pension is admissible to the families of the work charged employees who had died either before or after 21-06-1990 and in other words, family pension is admissible as if it was there from the day the Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978 came into being. It may also be noted that the said judgment and order dated 12-05-2015 has been passed in terms of the judgment and order dated 01-10-2001 passed by a Division Bench of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in W.A. No.154 of 1998 wherein the Hon’ble High Court has analysed and explained the provisions of the Terminal Benefits Rules, 1978 and in particular, Rule 6 with subsequent amendments thereof. The relevant portion of the judgment and order dated 01-10-2001 is reproduced herein below:’ “Now coming to the Writ Appeal No. 135 of 1998 arising out of Civil Rule No. 374 of 1995 which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge non-suited the writ petitioner on the ground that the petitioner’s husband (employee) was confirmed by order dated 01-09-1974 with effect from 06-03-1968 and he died on 15-06-1968. According to the learned Single Judge, since the employee had not completed one year of service after being confirmed and moreover, he had died much prior to the introduction of 1978 Rules which came into effect from 18-09-1978 and therefore, the writ petitioner was not entitled to family pension. We are of the view that both the reasons for non-suiting the writ petitioner are not well-based. No doubt the rules regarding terminal benefit came into effect from 18-09-1978 and the employees had prior to introduction of the 1978 rules. We are of the view that both the reasons for non-suiting the writ petitioner are not well-based. No doubt the rules regarding terminal benefit came into effect from 18-09-1978 and the employees had prior to introduction of the 1978 rules. However, vide Notification dated 06-06-1991 by which Rule 6(B) came to be added made the terminal benefits admissible to the employee who might have retired prior to 18-09-1978 and also family pension to the families of work-charged employees who died prior to 21-06-1990 and whose family members were living on 06-06-1991 when rule 6 (B) was introduced. Under rule 6 (B) there is no necessity that the employee after confirmation must have completed more than one year of service which as observed above was only introduced on 21-05-1993 (which was prospective). Consequently, the appellant in Writ Appeal No. 135 of 1998 would be entitled to family pension with effect from 06-06-1991 as the employee had died prior to 21-06-1990, i.e., 15-06-1968, and the family of the employee was living on 06-06-1991 when the rule 6 (B) was inserted. In other words, the condition of rule 6 (B) was complied with.” In view of the above, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5, the Accountant General is not sustainable and is accordingly rejected. 6. As regards the second point, relying upon the averments made in the rejoinder, it has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that in terms of the Office Memorandum dated 21-06-1994 issued by the Finance Department, the petitioner is entitled to family pension. Para 4 of the said O.M. is reproduced herein below: “4. The matter has been further examined by the Government and it is hereby clarified that widows of more than one shall be entitled to equal share of family pension where the date of the Government employee occurred before 28-01-1991 i.e., the date of adoption of the Government of India’s clarification.” On perusal of the said O.M., it is seen that there can be no denial of family pension even in a case where there are more than one widow and it is permissible for them to share it equally. The only condition to be fulfilled for getting benefit is that the Government employee must have died before 28-01-1991. The only condition to be fulfilled for getting benefit is that the Government employee must have died before 28-01-1991. There is no rebuttal to the averments made in the rejoinder and therefore, the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 5 is also not sustainable and has to be rejected. 7. For the reasons stated herein above, the instant writ petition is allowed with the direction that the respondents and in particular, the respondent No. 5, the accountant General shall take immediate and appropriate steps to calculate the family pension and pay the same to the petitioner within a period of three months from today, failing which an interest @ Rs.6% per annum be paid to the total amount of pension, so calculated, with effect from the date of this judgment and order till the date of payment. There shall be no order as to costs.