SANGITRAO S. PATIL, J.

1. The petitioner has challenged the order dated 15th March, 2007 passed by respondent no.2 – Deputy Commissioner, Women and Child Welfare Department, State of Maharashtra, Pune, whereby his claim for grant of family pension consequent upon the death of his wife namely Sunanda Hanmantrao Kavtikwar came to be rejected.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife of the petitioner namely, Sunanda was not medically fit to conceive child. Therefore, he got married to another woman with the consent of Sunanda in the year 1988. According to him, it was permissible to perform second marriage in view of the provisions of Rule 26(2) (b) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1979, (“Conduct Rules”, for short). Subsequently, Sunanda was appointed as Bal Sevika on 16-03-1990. Since it was a regular appointment, her services were pensionable in view of the Government Resolution dated 14th June, 1996. She died in harness on 6th October, 1995. The petitioner, being the widower, was entitled to get family pension in view of the provisions of Section 116(5) (i) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982 (“Pension Rules” fo