JUDGMENT : I.A. No.1441 of 2021 1. This Interlocutory Application has been filed for condoning the delay which has occurred in preferring this appeal. However, the office has reported that in view of the order dated 23.03.2020 and 06.05.2020 passed in suo motu Writ (Civil) No.03 of 2020 by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the matter has to be treated to have been filed within time. 2. In the above view of the matter, no order for condonation of delay is required to be passed in the present Interlocutory Application as the appeal is being treated to be preferred within time. 3. I.A. No.1441 of 2021 is accordingly disposed of. L.P.A. No.90 of 2021 4. The instant appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 05.11.2020 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.1567 of 2016, whereby and whereunder, the part of the decision of the authority as contained in letter dated 21.02.2011 issued by the Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General, Jharkhand, by which, it has been communicated that the second wife of Ex-employee is not entitled for family pension, has been declined to be interfered with by dismissing the writ petition. 5. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under : The writ petitioner claims to be legally wedded wife of Late S.I., namely, Wahiuddin Khan who died on 07.01.1993. Late husband of the writ petitioner has solemnized second marriage with the writ petitioner, during lifetime of the first wife, namely, Nazbun Nisha @ Nazo Bibi, who has also died on 18.06.2010 and as such, the writ petitioner claiming to be legitimate second wife of Late S.I., namely, Wahiuddin Khan has applied for grant of family pension in her favour before the competent authority. The Accountant General, on consideration of the application filed by the writ petitioner, has issued a letter on 21.02.2011 addressed to S.P. East Singhbhum, wherein, the dispute with regard to admissibility of family pension to the second wife has been raised. The writ petitioner, thereafter, has received a letter dated 30.06.2011, wherein, it has been stated that the family pension has not been admissible to her. The writ petitioner, thereafter, has received a letter dated 30.06.2011, wherein, it has been stated that the family pension has not been admissible to her. The writ petitioner, being aggrieved with the same, has approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.(S) No.1567 of 2016 invoking the jurisdiction conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, but the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the circular dated 06.09.1996, has dismissed the writ petition, against which, the present intra-court appeal has been preferred. 6. Mr. A. Allam, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner assisted with Mr. Faisal Allam has submitted that in view of Note-(i) of the circular dated 03.10.1964, wherein, it has been decided that the family pension will be paid in equal share in favour of the widow as also in favour of second wife also, but the learned Single Judge has not appreciated the aforesaid policy decision of the State Government. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the learned Single Judge after considering the circular dated 06.09.1996 has dismissed the writ petition, which according to him, cannot be said to be justified decision. 7. Per Contra, Mr. Rupesh Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent nos.4 and 5-Accountant General as also Mrs. Amrita Banerjee, learned A.C. to S.C.-V appearing for the respondent-State have submitted that the circular upon which the writ petitioner is relying upon, i.e., circular no.103/64-9505/V. dated 03.10.1964, since has been superseded by circular dated 06.09.1996, by which, the policy decision was taken that the family pension will not be admissible to the second wife and if the learned Single Judge, on consideration of the subsequent circular dated 06.09.1996, which was issued in supersession to the circular dated 03.10.1964, has dismissed the writ petition, the same cannot be said to suffer from an error and as such, the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also considered the finding recorded by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order. 9. The undisputed fact in this case is that the deceased employee, namely, Wahiuddin Khan had solemnized second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife. However, the first wife has died on 18.06.2010 and thereafter, an application was filed by the second wife for extending the benefit of family pension in her favour. 9. The undisputed fact in this case is that the deceased employee, namely, Wahiuddin Khan had solemnized second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife. However, the first wife has died on 18.06.2010 and thereafter, an application was filed by the second wife for extending the benefit of family pension in her favour. When the aforesaid claim having been rejected, the writ petition was filed but the said writ petition was also dismissed on the ground of non-admissibility, as per the Government decision dated 06.09.1996 and hence, the instant appeal has been preferred. 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-writ petitioner has relied upon the circular no.103/64-9505/V. dated 03.10.1964, while on the other hand, the respondent concerned has relied upon the circular dated 06.09.1996, basis upon which, the writ petition was dismissed. 11. It requires to refer herein that the Family Pension Scheme has been introduced for the State Government employees vide circular no.103/64-9505/V. dated 03.10.1964. It further requires to refer herein that as per the aforesaid scheme, the provision has been made as under Note-(i) to the effect, which reads as under:- “Note (i)-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 the pension will become payable to her eligible minor child. If at the time of her death, a widow leaves no eligible minor child, the payment of her share of the pension will cease.” The writ petitioner is relying upon the decision as contained under Note-(i) of the scheme dated 03.10.1964. The scheme dated 03.10.1964 stands superseded vide circular no.P.C.-1 Mis-41/92/10,059/V. dated 06.09.1996, by which, the decision of the State Government as contained in circular no.103/64-9505/V. dated 03.10.1964 has been superseded by taking a decision that the second wife will not be entitled for the family pension. 12. The position of law to the effect that the family pension has been decided to be paid on the basis of the circular dated 03.10.1964 but admittedly, the aforesaid scheme dated 03.10.1964 has been superseded by another scheme, i.e., the scheme dated 06.09.1996 which does not contain provision for admissibility of the benefit of family pension to be extended in favour of the second wife. 13. 13. This Court, having discussed the aforesaid issue as above, has considered the order passed by the learned Single Judge, wherefrom, it is evident that the learned Single Judge after taking into consideration the subsequent decision of the State Government dated 06.09.1996, by which, the second wife has not been held entitled for the family pension, has declined to interfere with the decision of the Administrative Authority by dismissing the writ petition. 14. We are, therefore, of the considered view that while doing so, the learned Single Judge has not committed any error in passing the impugned order, accordingly, the instant appeal lacks merit. 15. In the result, the instant appeal fails and is dismissed.