JUDGMENT : 1. The matter has been heard through video conferencing with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. They have no complaint about any audio and visual connectivity. 2. The is an appeal under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent directed against the order/judgment dated 14.09.2018 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.517 of 2018 whereby and whereunder the direction sought for upon the State respondent for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits to the writ-petitioner (widow of Late Sunil Kumar) has been denied. 3. At the outset, it requires to refer herein that the instant appeal since was barred by limitation, as such, taking into consideration the ground for condonation of delay of 08 days by way of an interlocutory application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, this Court, vide order dated 04.03.2020 had allowed the interlocutory application being I.A. No.3110 of 2019. 4. This Court before proceeding with the legality and propriety of the impugned order, deem it fit and proper to refer certain factual aspects, which are enumerated as under : The case of the appellant/writ-petitioner before the writ Court was that, her husband, namely, Late Sunil Kumar, while working as Assistant Engineer, Minor Irrigation Division, Gumla died on 09.10.2009 leaving behind his widow, i.e., the writ-petitioner, and two minor sons in very suspicious conditions and hence, first information report was lodged before the police station in the district of Gumla. The writ-petitioner approached to the authority for disbursement of post-death benefit of her husband but the same having not been considered, approached to the writ Court inter alia on the ground that since she is widow of the deceased employee, namely, Sunil Kumar, as such, as per the pension rule applicable she is entitled to get the post-death benefits including family pension. The State-respondent appeared and made opposition to the same on two grounds, firstly, one matrimonial title suit being Matrimonial Title Suit No.192 of 2008 for divorce having been filed by the husband, secondly, since the FIR was instituted levelling allegation therein about alleged involvement of the writ-petitioner in commission of murder of her husband, however, in the criminal case, the writ-petitioner has been acquitted by the judgment passed by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction which according to the State respondent since was not clean acquittal, as such, the writ-petitioner is not entitled to get family pension as well as the post-death retiral benefits. The learned Single Judge after appreciating the rival submissions agitated on behalf of the parties and also considering the fact that a succession certificate case was instituted by the writ-petitioner being Succession Certificate Case No.01 of 2011 as such no relief was granted pertaining to disbursement of the family pension and post-death benefit in favour of the writ-petitioner, which is the subject matter of the instant intra-court appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the writ-petitioner has agitated the ground that merely on account of pendency of the matrimonial title suit being Matrimonial Title Suit No.192 of 2008 which had been filed by the deceased husband and before conclusion, since the deceased husband of the writ-petitioner died, therefore, in absence of any conclusive finding by the matrimonial court, the marriage in between the writ-petitioner and deceased husband will be said to be surviving one and so long as the marriage in between them is surviving, the writ-petitioner will be said to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased husband and in that view of the matter, she is entitled to get the benefit of family pension as also the post-retiral benefits as per the provision of Rule 186 of the Pension Rules but without appreciating the this aspect of the matter, the learned Single Judge, on the ground of two sons, has refused to pass any positive direction and disposed of the writ petitioner ignoring the provision of Rule 186 of the Pension Rules. It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the writ-petitioner that since the Matrimonial Title Suit No.192 of 2008 has not come to a conclusive finding by making a decree of divorce in between the writ-petitioner and her deceased husband, she being the first claimant of the retiral dues being the legally wedded wife, there cannot be any claim of the sons and hence, there is no requirement to produce the succession certificate before the competent authority. Further submission has been made that although a criminal case was instituted against the writ-petitioner alleging her involvement in the murder of her husband but the said criminal case culminated into acquittal, as such, the said ground is also not available although the same has been brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge but the same has not been appreciated in the right perspective. In view of such submission, the order passed by the learned Single Judge has been said to suffer from infirmity. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State-respondent has submitted that there is no infirmity in the impugned order as because prior to filing of Matrimonial Title Suit No.192 of 2008, another Matrimonial Title Suit has been filed being Matrimonial Title Suit No.164 of 2006 under Section 13(1) read with Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by the deceased husband for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce but vide judgment dated 10.09.2007 the decree for divorce has not been passed rather the Family Court had thought it proper to pass a decree of judicial separation, as such, since there is decree of judicial separation, hence the writ-petitioner is not entitled for getting the benefit of pension/retiral benefits. Further ground has been agitated that although the writ-petitioner has been acquitted of the criminal charges vide judgment dated 30.07.2018 passed in Session Trial Case No.172 of 2010 but the said judgment since is based upon the benefit of doubt as such will not be treated to be a clean acquittal, hence, the writ-petitioner cannot be said to be entitled to get the pensionary benefit. In view of such submission, the order passed by the learned Single Judge will not be said to suffer from infirmity, therefore, the impugned order/judgment may not be interfered with. 7. In view of such submission, the order passed by the learned Single Judge will not be said to suffer from infirmity, therefore, the impugned order/judgment may not be interfered with. 7. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on appreciation of their rival submissions as also considering the relevant documents available on record, has gathered therefrom, that the writ-petitioner is the legally wedded wife. However, the deceased husband of the writ-petitioner, has filed a Matrimonial Title Suit No.164 of 2006 under Section 13(1) read with Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against her wife, namely, Smiriti Srivastava for dissolution of their marriage by a decree of divorce. The said Matrimonial Title Suit was decided vide judgment dated 10.09.2007 and is evident that the case was filed mainly on two grounds, i.e., cruelty and adultery as well as desertion. The Family Court has found about the question of adultery that although the fact is stated in the pleading and deposed by the witnesses about the illicit relationship but co-respondent has not been made as party, hence, in absence of co-respondent, positive finding has been declined to be given on the issue of adultery. So far as the question of cruelty is concerned, the same has been found to be attracted for which the family court has came to a conclusive finding that in spite of passing a decree for divorce under Section 13-A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it would be proper at that stage to pass decree for judicial separation in the facts and circumstances, however, with a liberty to the parties to file a suit for decree of divorce as per the provisions of law. 8. The deceased husband again filed a fresh Matrimonial Title Suit No.192 of 2008 for a decree of divorce but before the conclusion of the Matrimonial Title Suit No.192 of 2008, the husband was murdered on 09.10.2009 for which a criminal case was instituted which finally culminated into Session Trial Case No.172 of 2010. 9. 8. The deceased husband again filed a fresh Matrimonial Title Suit No.192 of 2008 for a decree of divorce but before the conclusion of the Matrimonial Title Suit No.192 of 2008, the husband was murdered on 09.10.2009 for which a criminal case was instituted which finally culminated into Session Trial Case No.172 of 2010. 9. The writ-petitioner, who at the time of death of the husband was having two minor sons, made an application for disbursement of death-cum-retiral benefits as also family pension on the ground that she is the legally wedded wife and before the judgment for decree of divorce which was to be passed by the competent court having jurisdiction in Matrimonial Title Suit No.192 of 2008 since her husband had died, she will be treated to be the wife and as such as per the provisions of Pension Rules/the scheme of Family Pension, she will be entitled to get the death-cum-retiral dues on account of the death of her husband. The State has denied the same on the ground of judicial separation, filing of Matrimonial Title Suit No.192 of 2008 and institution of a criminal case. The learned Single Judge has accepted the ground of the State authority upon which the learned Single Judge declined to pass any positive direction in favour of the writ-petitioner for disbursement of the death-cum-retiral benefits. 10. It would be evident from the reference of the stand agitated by the State by way of counter affidavit before the writ Court about the pendency of a Matrimonial Title Suit No.192 of 2008, instituted by the husband of the writ-petitioner for a decree of divorce, her implication in a criminal case for involvement in murder of her husband and also the two sons from the wedlock of the writ-petitioner and the deceased husband and on these three grounds, the learned Single Judge has declined to pass any positive direction in favour of the writ-petitioner. 11. 11. It is the settled position of law that merely filing a Matrimonial Title Suit under the specific provision as under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 having not concluded by way of passing judgment about decree of divorce the marriage will not be said to have dissolved and in that circumstances, the status of the wife will not be changed to be of a divorcee rather she will be treated to be the wife but the situation would be different if the judgment would have been delivered by passing a decree for divorce and from the date of such decree, the marital status of the couple will be changed since there would be no relationship of husband-wife in between the parties of the suit. 12. The learned Single Judge has considered about applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 treating the death-cum-retiral benefits to be a property. It is not in dispute that the pension including gratuity and family pension is to be decided and disbursed on the basis of Pension Rules depending upon several provisions reflecting therein the entitlement of the pension and family pension. The pension rules provides about the entitlement of gratuity to be paid in faovur of the legal heirs of the deceased employee depending upon the nomination if furnished by the concerned employee, however, here in the present fact it is not brought to the notice as to whether the decease employee has furnished nomination and if Yes, whether the name of the wife has been deleted from the nomination form, be that as it may, the fact remains that the writ-petitioner is claiming the benefits of death-cum-retirement gratuity as well as family pension on the basis of her status as legally wedded wife since no judgment was passed in the Matrimonial Title Suit No.192 of 2008. The question of applicability of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 fell for consideration before the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar and Other, reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431 , however, the fact leading to the said case was about disbursement of family pension in view of the solemnization of two marriages by the concerned employee but while deliberating the issue, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to hold at paragraph-14 which reads hereunder : “It cannot be disputed that the marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi was in contravention of clause (i) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and was a void marriage. Under Section 16 of this Act, children of a void marriage are legitimate. Under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves firstly on heirs in clause (1) which include widow and son. Among the widow and son, they all get shares (see Sections 8, 10 and the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956). Yogmaya Devi cannot be described a widow of Narain Lal, her marriage with Narain Lal being void. The sons of the marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi being the legitimate sons of Narain Lal would be entitled to the property of Narain Lal in equal shares along with that of Rameshwari Devi and the son born from the marriage of Rameshwari Devi with Narain Lal. That is, however, legal position when Hindu male dies intestate. Here, however, we are concerned with the family pension and death-cum-retirement Gratuity payments which is governed by the relevant rules. That is, however, legal position when Hindu male dies intestate. Here, however, we are concerned with the family pension and death-cum-retirement Gratuity payments which is governed by the relevant rules. It is not disputed before us that if the legal position as aforesaid is correct, there is no error with the directions issued by the learned Single Judge in the judgment which is upheld by the Division Bench in LPA by the impugned judgment.” It is evident from the quoted portion of the judgment that the question of applicability of the Hindu Succession Act in the facts of disbursement of family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity is to be governed by the relevant rules and therefore, the Hon’ble Apex Court has been pleased to come to a conclusive finding as would be evident from paragraph-14 of the judgment referred above that the provision of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 will not be applicable in the matter of disbursement of family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity rather it will depend upon the relevant rules, as such, we now proceed to examine the relevant rules which are applicable for disbursement of the death-cum-retiral benefits as well as family pension. 13. The death-cum-retirement gratuity has been dealt with in the Bihar Pension Rules as under Appendix-5 wherein two eventualities have been taken into consideration, first has been referred as under Annexure-I pertaining to a case for disbursement of death-cum-retirement gratuity/residuary in cases where valid nomination exist and under Annexure-II pertaining to cases where valid nomination does not exist. The same are being quoted hereunder for ready reference: “ANNEXURE I Form for death-cum-retirement gratuity/residuary in cases where valid nomination exists. No. Government of Bihar Department of … … … … … … District the … … … … …… Subject:-Payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity/residuary gratuity in respect of the late Shri/Shrimati… … … Sir, I am directed to state in terms of the nomination made by the late Shri/Shrimati… … … … … … in the Office/Department … … … … … a death-cum-retirement gratuity/residuary gratuity is payable to his/her nominee (s). A copy of the said nomination is enclosed herewith. 2. I am to request that a formal claim for the grant of death-cum-retirement gratuity/residuary gratuity may be submitted by you in the enclosed Form ‘H’ as soon as possible. 3. A copy of the said nomination is enclosed herewith. 2. I am to request that a formal claim for the grant of death-cum-retirement gratuity/residuary gratuity may be submitted by you in the enclosed Form ‘H’ as soon as possible. 3. Should any contingency has happened since the date of making the nomination, so as to render the nomination invalid in whole or in part, precise details of the contingency may be kindly be tested. Yours faithfully. To … … … … … … … … … … ANNEXURE II Form for death-cum-retirement gratuity/residuary gratuity where valid nomination does not exists. No. Government of Bihar Department of … … … … … … District the … … … … …… Subject:-Payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity/residuary gratuity in respect of the late Shri/Shrimati… … … Sir, I am directed to say that in terms of Finance Department memo no.PI-1010/57-17830, dated 18th December 1957, a death-cum-retirement gratuity/residuary gratuity is payable to the following members of the family of Shri/Shrimati … … … … … … late a, … … … … … … … in the Office/Department … … … … in equal shares : -- (i) Wife/husband; (ii) Sons; (iii) Unmarried daughters—including step-children. 2. In the event of there being no surviving Member of the family as indicated above, the death-cum-retirement gratuity/residuary gratuity will be payable to the following members of the family in equal shares – (i) Widowed daughter. (ii) brother below the age of 18 years and unmarried or widowed sisters, (iii) father, and (iv) mother 3. It is requested that a formal claim for the payment of death-cum-retirement gratuity/residuary gratuity may be submitted in the enclosed Form ‘H’ as soon as possible. Yours faithfully.” Likewise, Annexure-III of the Appendix-5 deals with the form for family pension where valid nomination exists and in that eventuality the disbursement of family pension would be on the basis of Family Pension Scheme, 1964. Annexure-IV contains form for family pension where valid nomination does not exists. 14. Yours faithfully.” Likewise, Annexure-III of the Appendix-5 deals with the form for family pension where valid nomination exists and in that eventuality the disbursement of family pension would be on the basis of Family Pension Scheme, 1964. Annexure-IV contains form for family pension where valid nomination does not exists. 14. This Court, therefore, taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar and Other (supra), is of the view that since there is no application of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as has been held in the said judgment, the disbursement of death-cum-retirement gratuity or the family pension will depend upon the assessment of the nomination paper furnished by the deceased employee at the time of his/her entry into the service or at any time in course of service. Therefore, this Court is of the view that since the Rules suggest about disbursement of death-cum-retirement gratuity or family pension on the basis of the nomination, hence, the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge about the succession certificate, which has been required to be produced, is not in consonance with the Pension Rules as referred above. Considering the fact, more particularly, on the date of death of the husband of the writ-petitioner, there was no judgment in the Matrimonial Title Suit No.192 of 2008, as such, the marital status of the writ-petitioner has not been changed. 15. Considering the fact, more particularly, on the date of death of the husband of the writ-petitioner, there was no judgment in the Matrimonial Title Suit No.192 of 2008, as such, the marital status of the writ-petitioner has not been changed. 15. Further question has been agitated by the learned counsel for the State-respondent that the writ-petitioner has been found to be involved in a criminal case of her husband’s murder but as the ground has been agitated by the learned counsel for the State about applicability of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 which provides that a person who commits murder or abets the commission of murder shall be disqualified from inheriting the property of the person murdered, or any other property in furtherance of the succession to which he or she committed or abetted the commission of the murder, since we have already come to a conclusive finding about non-applicability of the provision of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 as per the detailed discussion made hereinabove but even thereafter since the point about applicability of Section 25 of the said Act has been agitated, therefore, this Court deem it fit and proper to answer the same and hence, we, on appreciation of the submission, are of the view that in the facts and circumstances even the provision of Section 25 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 will not be applicable as because the writ-petitioner has been acquitted by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction vide judgment dated 30.07.2018 passed in Session Trial Case No.172 of 2010, however, further submission has been made by the learned counsel for the State-respondent that acquittal in the criminal case cannot be said to be an honourable acquittal since according to the State counsel, the acquittal in the criminal case is by giving benefit of doubt. 16. 16. We have appreciated the judgment rendered by the competent court of criminal jurisdiction which is available on record and found from paragraph-26 thereof that the learned trial court has considered the evidence meticulously and thereafter came to a finding about case of no evidence, however, in the ultimate paragraph of the said judgment, since the learned trial court has recorded while acquitting the writ-petitioner by giving benefit of doubt, as such, the judgment is being said to be not on merit but we are not in agreement with such submission after going across the consideration of materials by the learned trial court as would be evident more particularly from paragraph-26, which reads hereunder as: “26. The court went through the case record and materials available on the record. It is apparent that there is no eye witness in this case. The version of the witnesses is full of contradiction and there is no similarity between any of the witnesses that may connect the accused in the involvement of occurrence in this case and as such the witnesses examined by the prosecution does not inspire confidence and comes under the purview of developing circumstantial evidence. The arms used in commission of murder has neither been producer the court as a material exhibit nor the same has been seized by the I.O. investigation on this point has been made whether any case was filed by any of the parties Family Court Ranchi or at Muzafferpur court. It true that the witnesses have deposed supporting this fact but without any documentary proof their version cannot be relied upon. The letter written by the deceased prior to his murder Ext-2 and Ext-4 have not been sent to any expert that it is not believable that the same belong in the writing of deceased PW-8 and PW-17 failed to establish the face by corroborating their version from other witnesses that the accused had lilied relationship with Amit Singh as PW-12 is the own younger brother of the deceased has very clearly deposed that there was very good relationship between them. It is also relevant to mention here that the magistrate who recoded statement U/s 164 of Cr.P.C. of PW-8 and 17 has not turned up before the court to depose and due to non examination of the said magistrate the statement U/s 164 of Cr. It is also relevant to mention here that the magistrate who recoded statement U/s 164 of Cr.P.C. of PW-8 and 17 has not turned up before the court to depose and due to non examination of the said magistrate the statement U/s 164 of Cr. PC cannot be relied upon in into and the same is presumed to be a worthless document. The prosecution did not take trouble to prove the writing and signature of said magistrate which is a vital lacuna in the prosecution case. There is contradiction between witnesses and the I.O. regarding place of occurrence where body was laying. Not a single witness has uttered a single concrete line regarding the involvement of the accused in commission of murder rather PW-8 and PW-17 have raised mere suspicion upon the accused due to her illicit relationship with one Amit Singh but no such type of version came from the mouth of other witnesses. The I.O. also did not bring any concrete proof regarding the ill character of the accused saves and except a suspicion and merely on the basis of suspicion nobody can be held gritty. Undoubtedly, a doubt is created in the whole prosecution case but it is also admitted that its benefit always go in favor of the accused. Besides, there are other glaring lacunae in prosecution case. Some of them are being discussed herein PW-1 states that Ex. Engineer had sent some staff to house of Sunil Babu, It was dark then who was a stranger to Ex. Engineer why no person from office itself was sent. Besides para 12 and 16 of his evidence are important. He states Surnedra Singh stayed in the house of Sunil Babu why no question was put to Surendra Singh (PW-2) regarding deputation of Chawkidars, who was the staff who was sent by Ex. Engineer to residence of Sunil Babu. The investigating officers have not collected the evidence properly rather they have tried to create evidence. Investigating officers have taken a line of least resistance and have not investigated the case properly. It appears to be a perfunctory investigation. There is a character assassination of a woman but the allegation are vague and baseless as none from Muzzaferpur (Bihar) have been brought before court to substantiate allegatiorls pertinently even the alleged adulterer Amit Kumar Singh @ Guddu has not been examined in this case. It appears to be a perfunctory investigation. There is a character assassination of a woman but the allegation are vague and baseless as none from Muzzaferpur (Bihar) have been brought before court to substantiate allegatiorls pertinently even the alleged adulterer Amit Kumar Singh @ Guddu has not been examined in this case. FIR was lodged against unknown but assailants remained unidentified till date. Further, evaluation of evidence of oral witnesses only signifies material contradictions in their version. Some have thim hospital and others have not confided thing substation hey lack chance and are at variance with chirpiest there is no crunching cogent convicting evidence against counter Sumit Srivastava, Why no son of accused was examined on point of adultery, PW12 is own brother of deceased, who stated that perhaps angle for murder was level demand. Evidence of PW-15 2nd investigating officer is entirely based on information collected through spies, Moreover, why evidence of material witnesses like Kamlesh Baitha, Madan, Radha Mohli Yadunath Naik, Negeshwar Kumar, Rahul Pratap, Kapil Ram Paswan, Ganesh Prasad Singh was not recorded to conclude about motive of murder. Hence, it is a case with on eye witness. Evidence of demand of levy has surfaced in para 2 of Sunil Kerketta during cross examination. Police investigation has not focused in right direction. The demand of extortion money/levy form deceased by different people (criminal and their threats) thus not been looked at all, which finds reflection from para-7 of evidence of PW-12, the own younger brother of deceased. As regards letter, it also does not assist because it has not been established uniformly. Evidence of PW12 and PW-16(I.O) are contradictory. Identification of writing is also not established. Thus in the case whatever has been brought against accused lady is only in nature out of suspicion and only suspicion cannot take place of a proof and itself cannot form any basis. The immoral, illegal relation between wife accused and one Amit Kumar Singh are only vague bold allegation having no io ta of truth. "SEA OF SUSPICION HAS NO SHORES" 17. The immoral, illegal relation between wife accused and one Amit Kumar Singh are only vague bold allegation having no io ta of truth. "SEA OF SUSPICION HAS NO SHORES" 17. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the legal position vis-à-vis the provision of the rule pertaining to death-cum-retiral benefits as well as the family pension, hence, according to our considered view, the learned Single Judge has committed gross illegality in passing the impugned order, therefore, the judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law, accordingly, the judgment dated 14.09.2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.517 of 2018 is quashed and set aside. 18. In the result, the instant intra-court appeal as well as the writ petition stand allowed. 19. In consequence of allowing the instant appeal and the writ petition, this Court deem it fit and proper to pass a direction upon the State authority to examine the case of the writ-petitioner in the light of the provision of Bihar Pension Rules and applicable scheme for Family Pension and take decision in accordance with law with respect to the claim of the writ-petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of the copy of the order.