Hon'ble Suneet Kumar, J.—The petitioner is the second wife of Prem Narain Srivastava (deceased), according to the petitioner, the marriage was solemnized, with the consent of the first wife namely Smt. Kunti Devi in 1954. The husband of the petitioner a Gram Panchayat Adhikari was working with the respondent No. 3, Zila Panchayat Raj Adhikari, Basti. The petitioner was nominated for receiving gratuity, G.P.F. and life insurance. The husband retired on 31.3.1997, on attaining the age of superannuation, subsequently, died on 20.10.2002; petitioner made an application for family pension which was not granted, aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Court by filing (Writ Petition No. 53165 of 2003) petition challenging the rejection order dated 4.3.2004, passed by the respondent No. 2, Director, Pension Nideshalaya, U.P. Lucknow. The writ petition was allowed by judgment and order dated 15.7.2013. The operative portion of judgment being relevant is extracted:

“The petitioner has brought on record the papers showing nomination made by her husband in her favour in respect of the Gratuity, General Provident Fund and Group Insurance, as Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Said statement has been made in paragraph 8 of the writ petition. In paragraph-12 of the counter-affidavit, whereunder paragraph-8 of the writ petition has been replied, said statement of fact has not been denied. Thus, this fact is established that husband of the petitioner had made nomination in favour of the petitioner for his other post retiral benefits and the first wife of late Prem Narain Lal Srivastava has given her affidavit that she has no objection in case the petitioner is granted family pension. However, I find that in the impugned order the Director, Pension Directorate, Lucknow has failed to advert to those material facts and documents. Thus, the impugned order has been passed without application of mind and as such, the same needs to be quashed. Accordingly, the order dated 4.3.2004 passed by the Director, Pension Directorate, U.P., Lucknow, the respondent No. 1, is hereby quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Director, Pension Directorate, U.P., Lucknow, to reconsider the same afresh after giving opportunity to the petitioner and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed.

No order as to costs.”

2. The order was not complied with, aggrieved the petitioner filed Contempt Petition (Contempt Petition No. 2965 of 2014), (No. 2965 of 2014), the Court on 13.5.2014 directed the Director, Pension Nideshalaya, U.P., Lucknow to comply the order of the writ Court. The respondent No. 2 by impugned order dated 24.6.2014 rejected the claim of the petitioner, for the reason, that since the deceased employee, in the pension paper, had mentioned the name of both the wives, accordingly, direction/opinion was sought from the State Government. The Government vide letter dated 23.10.2013, pursuant to Government Order dated 24.8.1966, opined that in the event of the deceased employee having two wives the senior wife would be entitled to family pension until her death/remarriage. The family pension being non transferable cannot be given to the petitioner, even on an affidavit of the senior wife relinquishing her claim, to family pension in favour of the petitioner.

3. Sri H.R. Mishra, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Gopal Srivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that since the first wife has no objection, in case second wife is given family pension and further the first wife had given her consent, on an affidavit, to the competent authority, thus, would contend, that the petitioner, also being a nominee for gratuity, G.P.F., and group insurance, is entitled to family pension, further, the impugned order is in teeth of the judgment and order dated 15.7.2013 passed in the earlier writ petition.

4. In rebuttal, learned S