JUDGMENT : AMRESHWAR PRATAP SAHI, J. 1. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned counsel for the State of Bihar. 2. The appellant is a widow of Late Surbanshi Ram @ Surbansh Ram, who was a Class IV employee and who died on 12th of June, 2012. The dispute relates to the award of family pension to the widow of the deceased employee. 3. The learned single Judge has denied the relief on the ground that the appellant being the second wife of the deceased employee was not entitled to the family pension keeping in view the relevant rules. Hence this appeal. 4. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that the learned single Judge has overlooked the true impact of the rules on the peculiar facts of this case where the first wife Lalmuni Devi had already died during the lifetime of the deceased employee on 18th of May, 2012 itself. Thus, on the date when the employee died, there was only one widow and surviving wife, namely, the appellant herein. 5. In order to understand the controversy, we may point out that the Family Pension Scheme as was promulgated and revised by the State Government from time to time earlier contained a provision that where an employee survived by more than one widow, the pension will be paid to them in equal share. This is evident from the extract of the revised provisions contained in the Finance Department’s Resolution dated 19th of April, 1990 in respect of the Family Pension Scheme promulgated with effect from 1964. 6. The aforesaid provision, however, came to be revised by the Resolution of the Finance Department dated 06th of September, 1996. This is evident from the extract of the revised provisions contained in the Finance Department’s Resolution dated 19th of April, 1990 in respect of the Family Pension Scheme promulgated with effect from 1964. 6. The aforesaid provision, however, came to be revised by the Resolution of the Finance Department dated 06th of September, 1996. The same is reproduced herein under:- ^^fcgkj ljdkj foRr foHkkx Kki la[;k&ihŒlhŒ&1 fel&41@92@ 10]059@foŒ] fnukad 6-9-1996 fo"k;%& ljdkjh lsodksa dh nwljh iRuh dks ikfjokfjd isa'ku ds vkns;rk ds laca/k esaA ¼1½ funs'kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo"k; ds Álax esa dguk gS fd foRr foHkkx ds ifji= la[;k isu&103@64& 9505@foŒ fnukad 3-10-1964 dh dafMdk 7¼3½ dh fVIi.kh ¼1½ ds vuqlkj fdlh e`r ljdkjh lsod ds ,d ls vf/kd fo/kok,a thfor gks rks Hkkjr ljdkj ds ,rn~ laca/kh fu;ekuqlkj ikfjokfjd isa'ku muds chp cjkcj&cjkcj ns; gS rFkk ,d fo/kok dh e`R;q ds mijkUr ikfjokfjd isa'ku dk mDr Hkkx mlds ukckfyx larku dks vuqekU; gSA Hkkjr ljdkj ds i=kad&lhŒ,.MŒ,ŒthŒ 211@vkSfMV&1@13&86 fnukad 4-3-1987 ds }kjk vc fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd nwljh iRuh dks ikfjokfjd isa'ku vuqekU; ugha gSA ¼2½ Hkkjr ljdkj ds mi;qZDr fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk lE;d fopkjksijkUr foRr foHkkx ds Kki la[;k&9505@foŒ] fnukad 3-10-1964 dh dafMdk 7¼3½ dh fVIi.kh ¼1½ dks foyksfir djrs gq, fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS fd ,d iRuh ds thoudky esa nwljk fookg djus ij nwljh iRuh dks ikfjokfjd isa'ku ns; ugha gksxk] ijUrq nwljh iRuh ls mRiUu ukckfyx larku ds iwoZ fu;ekuqlkj ikfjokfjd isa'ku dh lqfo/kk ns; gksxhA 3- mi;qZDr la'kks/ku vkns'k fuxZe dh frfFk ls ÁHkkoh gksxk ijUrq ftu ekeyksa esa ikfjokfjd isa'ku dh lqfo/kk igys Ánku dh tk pqdh gS] mudh iqu% leh{kk dj Hkqxrku jksdus vFkok iwoZ esa Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf'k dh olwyh dh dkjZokbZ ugha dh tk;sxhA iwoZ ds vfu.khZr ekeyksa ij bl la'kks/ku ds vuqlkj gh fu.kZ; fy;k tk;sxkA** 7. A perusal of the same would indicate that the earlier resolution was taken notice of and an amendment was made that even if an employee consummates a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage and the first wife is surviving, then in that event the second wife will not get family pension but her illegitimate children would be entitled to the same. 8. 8. In the instant case, the peculiar fact is that even though there appears to have been a second marriage, but the first wife had already died before the death of the employee himself. Thus, the second wife was the only widow surviving as on the date of the death of the employee and there was nobody else to claim the family pension as the first wife had no children. In the given circumstances therefore, this peculiar case required a different treatment and interpretation in the light of the Resolution dated 6th of September, 1996, quoted herein above, and since the appellant was only surviving widow and wife as on the date of the death of the employee, there is no other prejudice being caused to the Government nor there being a violation of the Resolution dated 6th of September, 1996, the appellant ought to have been extended the said benefit. We do not find any such consideration having been made by the learned single Judge in the impugned judgment dated 6th December, 2017. 9. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned judgment dated 06.12.2017 and issue a mandamus to the 3rd respondent for revisiting the matter in the light of the facts stated above and the Letter No. 44 dated 30th March, 2015 is quashed. 10. The appeal and the writ petition both stand disposed of accordingly.