ORDER

The only issue that arises for consideration in this Writ Petition is whether the second wife who has married the deceased employee, prior to

02.06.1992, is entitled for family pension.

2. An explanation was introduced to Rule 49 (7) in the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 on 02.06.1992, clarifying that a Hindu second wife is entitled for family pension only if she had married the deceased employee prior to coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. The petitioner's representation, seeking to include his second wife (Manimegalai) as a beneficiary for the family pension, has been rejected by the respondents under the impugned order dated 04.08.2017 and the same is put to challenge in this Writ Petition. The following are the undisputed facts:

a) The petitioner, while the first marriage was in subsistence, has married a second wife ( Manimegalai ) on 08.07.1981;

b) The explanation to Rule 49 (7) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 was introduced by the Tamil Nadu Government on 01.01.1995 which came into effect on 02.06.1992;

c) The explanation referred to supra reads as follows:

"Explanation: For the purpose of this rules, the second wife shall be eligible for the benefits of family pension only if the second marriage-

(i) Solemnised as per the customary law prevailed among the community before the date of commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Central Act 25 of 1955); or (ii) Solemnized under the Mohammadan Law in which bigamy is permissible."

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that prior to

02.06.1992, even two widows are entitled to receive family pension. He relied upon a Judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court dated 23.01.2020 in the case of C.Sarojini Devi Vs. The Director of Local Funds Audits and Others passed in W.P.No.34952 of 2019, in support of his contention that a second wife is entitled for family pension.

5. Per contra, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents would submit that the issue involved in this Writ Petition is no longer res-integra in view of the decisions rendered by two Division Benches of this Court which are as follow:

a) R.Rajathi Vs. The Superintendent Engineer and Another in W.A.No.977 of 2017 dated 05.06.2018;

b) Vijayalakshmi Vs. The Principal Accountant General (A&E), Tamil Nadu and Another reported in 2022-1-Writ L.R.630.

6. Learned Standing Counsel would refer to various paragraphs in the aforementioned Judgments and would submit that in both the Judgments only if the marriage is held to be valid, a person is entitled for family pension. He would submit that since the petitioner's marriage with the second wife is admittedly a bigamous marriage and is a void marriage, the question of granting family pension to the petitioner's second wife will not arise. According to him, the respondents have rightly rejected the petitioner's request for including his second wife as being entitled to receive family pension.

7. As seen from the Division Bench Judgments relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, the issue involved in this Writ Petition is no longer res-integra. In the Division Bench Judgment dated 05.06.2018 in W.A.No.977 of 2017 referred to supra, the following paragraphs will make it clear that a person who has married subsequent to the coming into force of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, will have to contract a valid marriage to enable her to receive family pension in respect of a retired / deceased employee. The relevant paragraphs are extracted hereunder:

28. From a reading of the above provision particularly the provisions of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants’ Conduct Rules, 1973, it is clear that a Bigamous Marriage is prohibited and is a punishable offence unless the Personal Law applicable to such Government servant and the other party to the Marriage permit such Bigamous Marriage. The provisions of Sub Rule 7 (a )(i) of Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, is only an