Suman Shyam, J.

Heard Mr. M. Choudhury, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. G. Goswami, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner. I have also heard Mr. D. Nath, Addl. Sr. Govt. Advocate, Assam, appearing for respondent Nos.1, 3 and 4, Mr. R. K. Talukdar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 and Mr. D. Baruah, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.5 and 6, who are, in reality, one and the same person. Therefore, for the sake of convenience, both the respondents are here-in-below commonly referred to as the respondent No 6.

2. The dispute in this writ petition pertains to the competing claims of the two wives of Late Dr. Soumendra Mohan Mukherjee over their right to receive family pension. The facts of this case, shorn of unnecessary details, are briefly narrated herein below.

3. Dr. Soumendra Mohan Mukherjee (since deceased) was an employee of the Government of Assam. The writ petitioner is the first wife of late Dr. Soumendra Mohan Mukherjee and their marriage was solemnised on 07.03.1977. However, soon after their marriage, the petitioner had left her husband as a result of which Dr. Soumendra Mohan Mukherjee had remarried the respondent No 6 on 12.06.1987 and continued to live with her as husband and wife until his demise on 10.06.2009. During his life time, Dr. Soumendra Mohan Mukherjee had executed a Will dated 18.11.2006 bequeathing all his properties including his pensionary dues in favour of his second wife i.e. the respondent No.6 herein. After the death of her husband, the respondent No 6 had filed Title Suit (P) No.43/2010 before the Court of learned District Judge, Sonitpur, seeking probate in respect of the will and the said proceeding is pending disposal before the learned Court below. In the meantime, the respondent No. 6 had claimed her right to receive family pension and taking note of the Will as well as the nomination made by the deceased husband of the respondent No 6 in her favour, the respondent authorities had granted family pension to the respondent No.6. Having come to know about the same the petitioner has approached this Court by filing the instant writ petition inter-alia praying for a direction to pay the family pension to her on the ground that she was the legally married wife of Dr. Soumendra Mohan Mukherjee.

4. It appears that after the death of Dr. Mukherjee, the respondent No. 6 had received family pension for some time, but by the order dated 24.08.2018 passed in I.A. (Civil) No.4167/2017 arising out of WP(C) No.1328/2016, this Court had restrained the authorities from disbursing the family pension in favour of respondent No.6 as a result of which, payment of family pension has been stopped with effect from 24.08.2018.

5. Placing strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar and Others, (2000) 2 SCC 431 Mr. Choudhury, has argued that there is no dispute as regards the marriage held between the petitioner and her late husband Dr. Soumendra Mohan Mukherjee and it is also the admitted fact that their marriage took place on a date prior to the marriage solemnized between the respondent No 6 and late Dr. Mukherjee. As such, submits Mr. Choudhury, the marriage between the respondent No 6 and the husband of the writ petitioner was clearly barred under the law since the same was solemnized during the subsistence of the first marriage with the writ petitioner. Hence, the marriage of respondent No 6 with the husband of the petitioner is liable to be declared as null and void. By referring to Rule 143 of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, the learned senior counsel has argued that under the Rules only a legally married wife would be entitled to receive family pension and hence, the respondent No 6, not being a legally married wife, would not have any right to claim family pension.

6. Mr. Choudhury has further argued that family pension cannot be bequeathed by a Will and therefore, the learned District Judge wou