The main legal point established in the judgment is that the entitlement to family pension is determined by the provisions of the relevant pension rules and civil services conduct rules, and the court's decision is based on the interpretation and application of these rules.

H. Baruah, J.

1. The paramount issue involved in this writ petition is whether a second wife is entitled to have family pension during the lifetime of the first wife.

2. The writ petitioner is the second wife of Late Abdul Kasem Ahmed, who was a Deputy Handloom and Textile officer in the Handloom and Textile department and retired as such on 31.10.1994. He was granted pension on 1.11.1994 and was drawing the same continuously until his death. During the life time of Late Abdul Kasem Ahmed he was continuously maintaining his family including his wives - Late Abdul Kasem Ahmed died on 2.2.2003 and after his death his family pension is receiving by Musstt. Jubeda Ahmed, the first wife. It is alleged that the first wife, Musstt. Jubeda Ahmed failed to share the family pension in between herself and the second wife, the writ petitioner. Admittedly, both the wives have sons and daughters. The family pension received by the first wife is completely utilized by her and her children. No share of it has ever been part with in favour of the second wife and her children.

3. Being, thus, deprived, the second wife approached the concerned authority with a prayer to have a share of the family pension but her claim was dishonoured on the ground that her name was not enlisted in the family pension paper submitted by her husband, Late Abdul Kasem Ahmed.

4. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed a Title Suit being T.S. No. 07 of 2005 in the court of District Judge, Nalbari for declaration that she is married wife of Late Abdul Kasem Ahmed. Objection was filed by the first wife, the respondent No. 6 herein. After conclusion of the trial, the suit of the second wife, was decreed on 18.6.2005. Thereafter, the writ petitioner filed a succession case for obtaining a succession certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 before the District Judge, Nalbari and a succession certificate was granted on 11.7.2005 to collect 50% share of the total pensionary benefits inclusive of interest, dividends, etc.

5. Being armed with the judgment/order from the court, of the learned District Judge, Nalbari, writ petitioner filed representation on 27.7.2005 with the Director of Handloom and Textile, Assam and another representation on 15.5.2006 to the Treasury Officer, Dispur requesting 50% share of the pensionary benefits, she being the legally married second wife of Late Abdul Kasem Ahmed but the said representations were not considered or attended to.

6. Being deprived of the share of the pensionary benefits, the writ petitioner filed this instant petition for a direction to the appropriate authority in release of 50% share of the family pension in her favour.

7. Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned senior counsel for the petitioner relying in the provisions of Rule 143 of Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 ('the 1969 Rules') submitted that in cases where there are two or more widows, pension will be paid to the next survival widow, if any. The terms "eldest" would means seniority would refers to the date of marriage. This Rule is provided for the purpose of deciding pension in between the legal heirs of the deceased. Since the writ petitioner is the second surviving -widow of Late Abdul Kasem Ahmed she is also entitled to have a share of family pension as per the provision of the Rule 143 of the 1969 Rules. In support of the above contention Mr. A.S. Choudhury, learned senior counsel relied on the decision in the case between Amina Khatun and Ors. v. Jahura Khatun. and Ors. 2004 (Supp) GLT 67 wherein it was held that the 1969 Rules cannot override, the principle and provisions laid down under the Mohamedan law for which the framers of the Rules inserted a "Note" and provision under Rule 143 of the 1969 Rules. His Lordship while deciding as such took assistance of the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in Deokinandan Prasad v. State of Bihar AIR 1971 SC 1409. In paragraph 10 of the judgment their lordship held as under:

10. Keeping in view the above de