JUDGMENT : (Debangsu Basak, J.) : 1. Two appeals are taken up for analogous hearing as they emanate out of the same impugned order dated March 21, 2024 passed in W.P.A. 20266 of 2012 and W.P.A. 12536 of 2013. 2. Appeals are at the behest of Usha Rani Ojha. She claims herself to be the first wife of the deceased Tapan Kumar Ojha. As the first wife of the deceased employee, she claims family pension and the retiral benefits of the deceased employee. 3. Usha Rani Ojha made a representation to the employer of Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased. No action being taken on such representation, she filed a writ petition being W.P.A. 12536 of 2013. 4. Arati Ojha also filed a writ petition being W.P.A. 20266 of 2012 claiming retiral benefits and family pension in respect of Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased. 5. Both the writ petitions were heard and disposed of by the impugned order dated March 21, 2024. 6. Learned advocate appearing for Usha Rani Ojha submits that, she is the first wife of Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased. In support of such contention, he relies upon proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. being M.R. 152 of 1987 filed before the Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Medinipur. He draws the attention of the Court to the order dated July 28, 1989 passed therein as also the ultimate order passed on compromise on October 28, 2003. He submits that, son of Usha Rani Ojha and Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased deposed in such proceedings. Son was studying in Class V at that material point of time. Marriage between Ushal Rani Ojha and Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased were admitted and acknowledged in such proceedings by Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased and accepted to be so by the Jurisdictional Court. He submits that, since the proceedings and the orders passed in M.R. 152 of 1987 establish Usha Rani Ojha to be the legally married wife of Tapan Kumar Ojha, such claim cannot be negated by the employer of Tapan Kumar Ojha. According to him, learned Single Judge erred in not considering such facts in the correct perspective. 7. Learned advocate appearing for Usha Rani Ojha also draws the attention of the Court to the marriage certificate of Arati Ojha. He submits that, marriage certificate is dated October 22, 2003. According to him, learned Single Judge erred in not considering such facts in the correct perspective. 7. Learned advocate appearing for Usha Rani Ojha also draws the attention of the Court to the marriage certificate of Arati Ojha. He submits that, marriage certificate is dated October 22, 2003. Such marriage certificate according to him is much after the marriage of Usha Rani Ojha with Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased. He contends that marriage between Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased and Arati Ojha is a void marriage since marriage between Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased and Usha Rani Ojha were subsisting on the date on which those two persons claim themselves to marry each other. 8. Learned advocate appearing for Arati Ojha submits that, proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C., are not binding upon his client. His client was not a party to such proceedings. Such proceedings did not return any finding of marriage between Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased and Usha Rani Ojha. He also draws the attention of the Court to a portion of the deposition of Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased who in cross-examination denied that he married any government employee. 9. Learned advocate appearing for Arati Ojha submits that the final order passed in the proceedings under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was on compromise. According to him, Usha Rani Ojha made false statements before such Court. 10. Learned advocate appearing for Arati Ojha submits, on instructions, that a sum of about Rupees 39 lakhs was received by his client during the pendency of the appeal from the employer as death cum retirement benefits and arrears of pension. 11. Learned advocate appearing for Arati Ojha draws the attention of the Court to WPSEB Employees (Death cum Retirement Benefit) Regulations, 1985 in particular to Note –I to Regulation 19 thereof. He submits that, where a deceased employee was survived by more than one widow, family pension shall be paid to them in equal shares. He submits that his client is ready and willing to share the family pension in equal share in terms of such Note to Regulation 19. 12. He submits that, where a deceased employee was survived by more than one widow, family pension shall be paid to them in equal shares. He submits that his client is ready and willing to share the family pension in equal share in terms of such Note to Regulation 19. 12. Learned advocate appearing for West Bengal State Electricity Distribution Company Limited submits that death cum retirement benefits including family pension was disbursed to Arati Ojha in terms of the impugned order dated March 21, 2024 as also on the basis of the nomination made by the deceased employee in the service book. He submits that, the disbursement was done after obtaining an indemnity bond from Arati Ojha. 13. Learned Single Judge did not grant relief to Usha Rani Ojha on the ground that she failed to establish her marital status as the first wife of Tapan Kumar Ojha since deceased. 14. We find from the materials placed on record that there was a proceeding under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. initiated at the instance of Usha Rani Ojha against Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased being M.R. No. 152 of 1987 before the Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Medinipur. In such proceedings, an order dated July 28, 1989 was passed. In such order, three issues were considered. 15. It would be apposite to set out the three issues formulated by the Judicial Magistrate on July 28, 1989 which are as follows:- “1) Did the O.P. neglect or refuse to maintain the petitioner and his daughters? 2) Has the petitioner or daughters any income. 3) Has the O.P. sufficient means to maintain his wife?” 16. Issue No. 3 of the order dated July 28, 1989 required the Judicial Magistrate to pronounce on the relationship of husband and wife between Usha Rani Ojha and Tapan Kumar Ojha since deceased. 17. Judicial Magistrate by the order dated July 28, 1989 considered the evidence led by the prosecution and as well as Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased. Judicial Magistrate also considered a Court witness being the son of the parties before the Court. After discussing such evidence, Judicial Magistrate allowed the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on contest. All the issues were answered in favour of Usha Rani Ojha. Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased was directed to pay/deposit amounts specified in a bank account also specified. After discussing such evidence, Judicial Magistrate allowed the petition under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. on contest. All the issues were answered in favour of Usha Rani Ojha. Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased was directed to pay/deposit amounts specified in a bank account also specified. Such direction necessarily proceeded after the Court found a relationship of husband and wife subsisting between Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased and Usha Rani Ojha. 18. Materials brought on record also establish that a Misc. Case was initiated for the purpose of enhancement of maintenance and enforcement of the order passed under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and such Misc. Case being Misc. Case No. 20 of 1986 was disposed of by an order dated October 28, 2003 on compromise. 19. Order dated July 28, 1989 passed by the Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Medinipur in M.R. No. 152 of 1987 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. was final disposal of such proceedings, on contest. No material is placed on record to suggest let alone establish that such final order was challenged before any forum. The order dated October 28, 2003 which was passed on compromise was in Misc. Case No. 20 of 1996 filed for the purpose of enforcement/modification of the final order dated July 28, 1989. 20. Issue between deceased Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased and Usha Rani Ojha as to their relationship of husband and wife stood decided on July 28, 1989 by the Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Medinipur in M.R. 152 of 1987. Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased was not entitled to act in derogation with such finding passed by the Jurisdictional Court on such issue. 21. Materials placed on record suggest that Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased caused a marriage certificate to be issued on October 22, 2003 stating that he was married to Arati Ojha with effect from December 27, 1982. Such marriage certificate on the teeth of the decision of the Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Medinipur in M.R. 152 of 1987 dated July 28, 1989 is of no consequence with regard to declaration of marital status of Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased, vis-à-vis Usha Rani Ojha. Such marriage certificate on the teeth of the decision of the Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Medinipur in M.R. 152 of 1987 dated July 28, 1989 is of no consequence with regard to declaration of marital status of Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased, vis-à-vis Usha Rani Ojha. Usha Rani Ojha is the first wife and still continues to remain as so despite the marriage certificate dated October 22, 2003 by dint of the order dated July 28, 1989 passed in M.R. 152 of 1987 by the Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Medinipur. 22. Significantly, while discussing the evidence taken in such proceedings in M.R. 152 of 1987, Judicial Magistrate, 6th Court, Medinipur considered the evidence of Court witness who is the son of Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased and Usha Rani Mukherjee then studying in Class V that Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased brought a lady and asked such son to address such lady as his mother. Son described the lady as the step mother. 23. As noted above, the order of the Judicial Magistrate is dated July 28, 1989 which records that the son of Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased and Usha Rani Ojha was studying Class V. For the purpose of obtaining a perspective on the marriage certificate dated October 22, 2003 between Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased and Arati Ojha, it is necessary to understand the age of such son in 1989, who is studying in Class V. Reasonably, such son would be 11 years old although he stated that he was 14 years old, in his cross-examination. We will take the lesser year in order to give the maximum benefit to Arati Ojha. Taking the son to be 11 years old in 1989, his year of birth would be 1978. Certificate of Marriage between Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased and Arati Ojha is claimed to be with effect from December 27, 1982. 24. Substantial materials are on record to conclusively establish that Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased was married to Usha Rani Ojha much prior to his marriage with Arati Ojha. 25. The first wife, Usha Rani Ojha along with the children born out of the wedlock of Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased with Usha Rani Ojha, are entitled to inherit the entirety of the retiral benefits of the deceased employee on his death. Ushal Rani Ojha in addition is entitled to the family pension. 26. 25. The first wife, Usha Rani Ojha along with the children born out of the wedlock of Tapan Kumar Ojha, since deceased with Usha Rani Ojha, are entitled to inherit the entirety of the retiral benefits of the deceased employee on his death. Ushal Rani Ojha in addition is entitled to the family pension. 26. During the pendency of the appeal, family pension was disbursed to Arati Ojha. Defence of WBSEDCL is that since the impugned order directed payment along with the interest and since the deceased employee nominated Arati Ojha in the service book, therefore, they disbursed after obtaining indemnity bond. 27. Both the appeals were being considered by the Appeal Court. Prayer for stay of the impugned order was made at the behest of Usha Rani Ojha when we observed in presence of the respondents including WBSEDCL that we will hear out the appeal. In fact, we invited the private parties to enter into a settlement so that interests of the private parties are protected to the benefit of the respective private parties. All these happened in presence of the learned advocate representing WBSEDCL. 28. Yesterday, when the matter was taken up, we were informed that the entirety of the benefits including family pension was disbursed to Arati Ojha. When we enquired of the learned advocate for WBSEDCL as to whether such fact was correct or not, he submitted that he was not aware of such fact. We requested to him to take instructions. Today, on instructions, he made the submissions as noted above. 29. We place on record out displeasure on the conduct of WBSEDCL. Appeals were being heard in presence of all the learned advocates for the parties in the appeal. There was no urgency on the part of the WBSEDCL to disburse during the pendency of the two appeals. 30. WPSEB Employees (Death cum Retirement Benefit) Regulation, 1985, particularly Note-I of Regulation 19 thereof is pressed into service on behalf of Arati Ojha to claim that she is entitled to half the share of the family pension since the deceased employee left behind two widows. 31. Our attention is drawn to 2019 (5) CHN (Cal) 581 (Swapna Deb Majhi vs. State of West Bengal), where Death cum Retirement Benefit Rules, 1971 particularly Rule 104 and the similar note were considered. 32. In Swapna Deb Majhi (supra), the Coordinate Bench held as follows: “7. 31. Our attention is drawn to 2019 (5) CHN (Cal) 581 (Swapna Deb Majhi vs. State of West Bengal), where Death cum Retirement Benefit Rules, 1971 particularly Rule 104 and the similar note were considered. 32. In Swapna Deb Majhi (supra), the Coordinate Bench held as follows: “7. The DCRB Rules were made by the executive in 1971. The note to Rule 104 was introduced in 1997 by an amendment. By this time, the law relating to marriage had been codified in case of Hindus and Christians. In case of Muslims, it was still governed by their personal law, as it is, still. Under the said statute law, it was not possible for a Hindu to contract a valid marriage with anyone as long as he had a spouse living. In terms of section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, no valid second marriage could be contracted by a Hindu as long as his first wife was alive and his marriage with her subsisted. If we construe the note to Rule 104 of the said DCRB Rules as being applicable to all government servants, regardless of whether the law applicable to them allowed them to marry more than once while the first wife was living and the first marriage subsisted, we would be imputing to the executive a desire to extend a benefit by statutory rules which, under law and public policy expressed by law, could only be extended to a wife under a valid marriage. In other words, we would, by such interpretation, impute. to the executive the desire to do wrong by statutory rules. On the other hand, if we construe the said Note to Rule 104 as an enabling provision to allow the Government to pay family pension to more than one widow where the second marriage was contracted before the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 came into force in case of Hindus, and in all other cases, where the personal law of the Government servant allowed him to marry more than one wife during the subsistence of his first marriage and the lifetime of his first wife, to pay family pension to more than one widow, we would not only be harmonizing Rule 104 of the said DCRB Rules with public policy but we would be ironing out the crease in interpretation, and avoid having to impute to the executive the desire to do wrong. 8. 8. We are fortified in this interpretation by the judgment of a coordinate bench in WPST 154 of 2018 (Smt. Champa Roy, vs. State of West Bengal and Others) delivered on June 10, 2019 which holds that whore the second marriage is void under the law to which it was subject, no legally enforceable right accrues to the purported second wife, to obtain any financial benefit such as a claim on pension and other financial benefits. 9. We are emboldened to accept the above as a binding precedent since it appears to be consistent with the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, inter alia in the case of Raj Kumari and another vs. Krishna and others reported in AIR 2015 SC 2697 : (2015) 14 SCC 511 where it was held, among other things, as follows: - "13. Normally, pension is given to the legally wedded wife of a deceased employce. By no stretch of imagination can one say that the plaintiff Smt Krishna was the legally wedded wife of late Shri Atam Parkash, especially when he had a wife, who was alive when he married another woman in Arya Samaj temple, as submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the appellants. We are, therefore, of the view that the High Court should not have modified the findings arrived at and the decree passed by the Trial Court in relation to the pensionary benefits. The pensionary benefits shall be given by the employer of late Shri Atam Parkash to the present appellants in accordance with the rules and regulations governing service conditions of late Shri Atam Parkash." Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to hold, "Therefore, at least for the purpose of claiming maintenance under section 125, Cr.P.C., such a woman is to be treated as the legally wedded wife." (emphasis supplied by us).” 33. Note of Rule 104 and the note under consideration in Regulation 19 of the Regulations of 1985 are same. Both allows family pension to be paid in equal shares when an employee is survived by more than one widow. 34. In view of Swapna Deb Majhi (supra), family pension cannot be shared between Usha Rani Ojha and Arati Ojha. 35. Note of Rule 104 and the note under consideration in Regulation 19 of the Regulations of 1985 are same. Both allows family pension to be paid in equal shares when an employee is survived by more than one widow. 34. In view of Swapna Deb Majhi (supra), family pension cannot be shared between Usha Rani Ojha and Arati Ojha. 35. In such circumstances, WBSEDCL will disburse all death cum retiral benefits to Usha Rani Ojha and the children born out of the wedlock of Tapan Kumar Ojha (since deceased) and Usha Rani Ojha in equal shares forthwith. 36. WBSEDCL will disburse family pension to Usha Rani Ojha on and from the date of accrual of such family pension on the death of Tapan Kumar Ojha. 37. Both components will carry interest at the rate of 9 per cent per annum. Such rate of interest is awarded since such rate of interest was awarded by the learned Single Judge and WBSEDCL did not prefer any appeal therefrom. 38. WBSEDCL will make the disbursements within seven days from date. 39. WBSEDCL is at liberty to realize/recover all disbursements made to Arati Ojha. WBSEDCL is also at liberty to identify the employees involved in causing such disbursement and realizing and/or recovering short fall, if any, from the employees involved. 40. FMA 587 of 2024 along with FMA 586 of 2024 and all other connected applications of both the appeals thereof are disposed of without any order as to costs. 41. I agree, (Md. Shabbar Rashidi, J.)