R. SUBRAMANIAN, J.

1. This Intra Court Appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 12.07.2017 made in WP No. 17648 of 2017, wherein, the claim of the appellant herein for grant for family pension was rejected on the ground that the appellant, being the second wife of the deceased pensioner, is entitled to family pension.

2. The facts that led to the filing of the Writ Petition are as follows:

The petitioner/appellant claimed that she was married to one C. Rethinasamy as a second wife on 19.08.1980. The said Rethinasamy was working in the Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and he retired from service on 31.10.2002 and he died on 01.10.2013. Even in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it is stated that prior to the marriage with the appellant/petitioner, the said Rethinasamy had married one Sundarammal and out of the said marriage they had two children, viz. R. Gavaskar and R. Karthiga. It is claimed that since Sundarammal deserted her husband Rethinasamy, he had married the appellant/ petitioner as the second wife even during the subsistence of the first marriage. Subsequently, the first marriage came to be dissolved on 07.10.2003. Claiming that in view of the dissolution of the first marriage the appellant/petitioner being the surviving widow, would be entitled to family pension, the appellant/petitioner made a representation to the 1st respondent on 07.11.2003 seeking family pension. The 1st respondent by the order impugned in the Writ Petition dated 02.07.2016, rejected the claim of the petitioner/ appellant for family pension, on the ground that since the marriage with the petitioner was contracted by a deceased employee on 19.08.1990, during the subsistence of the first marriage, the marriage itself is invalid and hence the appellant/petitioner is not entitled to family pension. The learned Single Judge, dismissed the Writ Petition holding that in view of the admitted position that the appellant/petitioner was married as a second wife on 19.08.1990 she would not be entitled to family pension under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978. It is this order which is challenged with the above appeal.

3. We have heard Mr. R. Sreedharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Mr. P.R. Dhilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr. V. Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent.

4. The only and interesting question that arises in this Appeal, is as to whether, a second wife of a Hindu, whose marriage was contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage that too after the introduction of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, would be entitled to family pension. Mr. R. Sreedharan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would rely upon Sub Rule 7(a)(1) of Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978, which reads as follows:

“7(a)(i). Where family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to widows in equal shares.”

5. By relying upon the above Rule, it is contended that the Pension Rules itself provides for payment of pension to more than one widows and therefore, de hors the fact that the marriage is invalid under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the surviving widow or widows would be entitled to family pension. He would also invite our attention to the judgments of Single Judges of this Court in WP (MD) No. 13372/2012 dated 04.04.2014; WP (MD) No. 9374 of 2010 dated 22.07.2014; WP (MD) No. 7817 of 2011 dated 26.08.2014; WP No. 31990 of 2012 dated 06.08.2014; WP 15806 of 2015 dated 18.06.2015; WP No. 9856 of 2015 dated 02.11.2015; WP No. 12105 of 2016 dated 31.03.2016 and WP No. 26377 of 2014 dated 20.10.2016 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar and Others, 2000 (2) SCC 431, dated 27.01.2000.

6. Contending contra, Mr. P.R. Dhilip Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent and Mr. V. Vijay Shankar, learned counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent would poi