The sole question which falls for consideration in this writ petition is whether an illegitimate son is entitled to a share in the family pension of his deceased father along with his first wife?

2. The facts giving rise to this controversy may be briefly noticed at the outset. The deceased died on 21-6-2013 due to illness when he was serving as Senior Assistant under the Directorate of Secondary Education, Assam. He is survived by his first wife (the petitioner herein), his second wife (the respondent No. 7), his four sons born from his wedlock with the petitioner and one son (Mritunjoy Kalita) born out of his wed-lock with the respondent No. 7. In the Certificate of Next of Kin dated 6-8-2013 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro), the names of the petitioner and the five sons were shown as his legal heirs. Following the death of the deceased, the petitioner applied for family pension of her husband, but her pension papers have not been forwarded by the respondent No. 2 to the respondent No. 6 till now. In the meantime, the respondent No. 3 expressed doubts on the genuineness of the said certificate issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Kamrup (Metro) and suggested to her to share the family pension equally with the respondent No. 7, which is not acceptable to her as the respondent No. 7 is not the legally married wife of the deceased. Aggrieved by the inaction of the respondent authorities, the petitioner is filing this writ petition for appropriate directions.

3. It is contended by Mr. S.K. Singha, the learned counsel for the petitioner, that payment of family pension in Assam is regulated by the provisions of Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969 (“the Pension Rules” for short) and according to Rule 143 of the Rules, it is the first legally married wife of the deceased alone who is entitled to the family pension of the deceased. He submits that neither his second wife nor his illegitimate children are entitled to the family pension of the deceased. To fortify his submission, he draws my attention to the decision of this Court in Suraiya Sultana v. State of Assam and others, 2006 (Supp) GLT 533. Per contra, Ms. B. Choudhury, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 7, submits that even though the marriage between the deceased and the respondent No 7 during the lifetime of the petitioner is not valid in law, the right of the son of the respondent No. 7 born out of her wed-lock with the deceased cannot be taken away since he is the first class legal heir. Strong reliance is placed by her on the decision of the Apex Court in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar, (2000) 2 SCC 451 and decision of this Court in Bulu Das v. Moni Das, 2003(3) GLT 400 in support of her contention. She, therefore, strenuously submits that this is a fit case for dismissing the writ petition and for issuing appropriate directions to the respondent authorities for payment half of the family pension to the illegimate son of the deceased, who is living with the respondent No. 7.

4. Before proceeding further, it will be profitable to refer to the provisions of Rules 137(5) and 43 of the Pension Rules, which are as under:

“137(5) Except as may be provided by a nomination under sub-rule (6) -

(a) a pension sanctioned under this section will be allowed --

(i) to the eldest surviving widow, if the deceased is a male officer or to the husband, if the deceased is a female officer;

(ii) * * *

“143. (i) Family for the purpose of rules in this Section will include the following relatives of the officer-

(a) wife, in the case of a male officer;

(b) husband, in the case of a female officer;

(c) minor sons; and

(d) unmarried minor daughters.

Note 1.- (c) and (d) will include children adopted legality before retirement.

Note 2.- Marriage after retirement will not be recognised for the purposes of rules in this Section.

(ii) The pension will be admissible-

(a) in the case of widow/widower up to the date of her/his death or re-marriage whichever is earli