O R D E R

The order passed by the Principal Accountant General returning the family pension proposal submitted by the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 23.09.2008, is under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner states that her husband late T.Vijayagnanam was employed as Headmaster in M.D.Elementary School and died on 02.11.2007. The petitioner further states that the marriage between herself and the deceased employee T.Vijayagnanam was solemnised on 11.09.1997 in CSI Church, Perianagapoondi. Out of the wedlock, a female child and a male child were born. The husband of the petitioner earlier married one Smt.Jemimaa on 12.03.1982 and out of the wedlock between the said Jemimaa and the husband of the writ petitioner, a female child was born and subsequently, the said Jemimaa, the first wife of the deceased employee, got divorce on 23.12.2005 in OP No.26 of 2005.

3. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the petitioner is the wife of the deceased employee and she submitted the family pension proposal for sanction. The Accountant General of Tamil Nadu returned the same on the ground that the petitioner is not eligible, as the marriage between the deceased and the petitioner was a void marriage. Consequently, the family pension was extended to the other legal heir, who had not completed 25 years of age and the other legal heir got the family pension, which was sanctioned by the Principal Accountant General of Tamil Nadu as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

4. Admittedly, the marriage between the deceased employee and the writ petitioner was solemnised on 11.09.1997 before the decree of divorce between the first wife and the deceased employee on 23.12.2005. Thus the second marriage of the deceased employee with the writ petitioner was a void marriage and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for family pension as per the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978.

5. As per the Pension Scheme, the family pension is to be paid only to the spouse i.e., legally wedded spouse of an employee. Once the Authorities came to know that the family pensioner is not a legally wedded spouse of the deceased employee, then they cannot continue to pay the family pension. In such circumstances, the spouse has to establish that he/

she is the legally wedded spouse of the deceased employee.

6. The scope of Tamil Nadu Pension Rules for grant of family pension under Rule 49 was elaborately considered by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of R.Rajathi Vs. The Superintendent Engineer dated 05.06.2018 in W.A.No.977 of 2017. That apart, Rule 49 (7) of Pension Rules contemplates the pension is payable for more than one widows. The language employed is “payable”. Thus, if more than one widow is eligible for family pension and such family pension is payable to the second widow, then only the question of sharing the pension under Rule 49 of the Pension Rules would arise, but not otherwise. The payability/ eligibility of family pension for more than one widow would arise, only if two wives are permissible. Such a situation was considered by the Rule Makers since the marriage was solemnized prior to Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was considered as valid. Prior to the year 1955, contracting a second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife was permitted and therefore, the sharing of family pension arouse and the provision was enacted. However, after the year 1955, second marriage is not only misconduct under the Government Servants Conduct Rules, but prohibited. Therefore, the question of now sharing of family pension would not arise at all.

7. In the present case, the writ petitioner admittedly married the deceased employee in the year 1997 during the lifetime of the first wife of the deceased employee Smt.Jemimaa and therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for family pension under the Pension Scheme. Thus, this Court has no reason to interfere with the decision taken by the respondent. 8. Accor