Order In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has made a grievance against the decision of the Accountant General, Bihar, whereby his application for nomination of his second wife for family pension has been rejected. 2. The petitioner having completed the age of superannuation, retired on 31.1.1987. Before the pension papers could be finalised, his wife died on 4.4.1987. Thereafter, he solemnised a second marriage with Javeda Khatoon. The petitioner thereafter filed an application before the Accountant General through the Sub-divisional Officer, Aurangabad, for nomination of his second wife to get family pension in the event of his death. The aforesaid application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that marriage after retirement will not be recognised for the purposes of family pension. Therefore, the petitioner's wife with whom marriage was solemnised after retirement will not be entitled for family pension. 3. Therefore, in view of the facts stated above, two questions emerge for consideration- (i) whether a spouse-man or woman as the case may be, married after retirement of the concerned Government servant can be kept out of the definition so as to deprive him or her from the benefit of the family pension; and (ii) whether offsprings born after retirement are entitled to the benefit of such pensionr ? 4. A common stand both by the Accountant General and the State of Bihar has been taken that family pension would not be admissible to a spouse who got married after the retirement of the concerned Government servant. While examining the benefit of family pension scheme and entitlement of the widows and dependent minors, the Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Poonamal etc. v. Union of India and others ( AIR 1985 SC 1196 ) held hereunder: “7. Where the Government servant rendered service to compensate which a family pension scheme is devised the widow and the dependent minors would equally be entitled to family pension as a matter of right. I n fact we look upon pension not merely as a statutory right but as the fulfilment of a constitutional promise inasmuch as it partakes the character of public assistance in cases of unemployment, old-age, disablement or similar other cases of undeserved want. Relevant rules merely make effective the constitutional mandate” 5. I n fact we look upon pension not merely as a statutory right but as the fulfilment of a constitutional promise inasmuch as it partakes the character of public assistance in cases of unemployment, old-age, disablement or similar other cases of undeserved want. Relevant rules merely make effective the constitutional mandate” 5. In the case of Deoki Nandan Prasad v. State of Bihar ( AIR 1971 SC 1409 ), the Supreme Court held as below:- "The payment of pension does not depend upon the discretion of the Government but is governed by the relevant rules and anyone entitled to the pension under the rules can claim it as a matter of right." 6. It is well known that the pension is payable on the consideration of past service of the Government Servant. There are instances where a Government servant contracts marriages after retirement. It is not the case of the respondents that the family pension is admissible on account of the fact that the wife contributed to the efficiency of the Government servant during his service career. The Supreme Court while examining identical question in the Case of Smt. Bhagwati vs. Union of India ( AIR 1989 SC 2088 ) held that in most of the cases, marriage after retirement is done to provide protection and to secure companionship during old age. It was held that for the purpose of family pension, no distinction can be made with a spouse who gets married during service or after the retirement. Considering the facts of that case wherein there was denial to the widow for family pension, at Page 2091 it was held thus:- "13. Considered from any angle, we are of the view that the two limitations incorporated in the definition of 'family' suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination and cannot be supported by nexus or reasonable classification. The words 'provided the marriage took place before retirement of the Government servant' in clause (i) and 'but shall not include son or daughter born after retirement' in clause (ii) are thus ultra vires Art. 14 of the Constitution and cannot be sustained." It is well known that the Government Servant Conduct Rule prohibits marriage during life time of a Spouse. Besides the aforesaid, as per provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act and Indian Penal Code, second marriage during the life time of the first wife is void and makes such person liable for prosecution. Therefore, a Government servant both before retirement or after retirement has no scope to have second wife or husband as the case may be during the life time of the husband or the wife. 7. Similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in the case of Kanta Devi vs. Union of India and others (1994 AIR SCW 3891). This was a case where a widow of an ex-serviceman had made a grievance that she was not being paid family pension because she married the ex-serviceman after his retirement from active service. This was because of Army Instruction No. 51 of 1980 which defines 'family though includes wife' note (2) says that a marriage after retirement will not be recognised. The Supreme Court holding such instruction as irrational and harsh, struck down note no. (2) because of its irrationality and directed the respondents to pay family pension as if the aforesaid Army Instruction had not contained Note No. (2). In the case of Smt. Bhagwati Vs. Union of India (supra) it was held that the purpose for the family pension is to compensate the widow and the dependent minors in the case of death of a Government servant. The respondents have not been able to give any plausible explanation for exclusion of the benefit of the family pension to a wife who gets married after retirement of Government servant or to the minor children born after the retirement from such wedlock. 8. Considering from different angles as indicated above, we hold that the limitation incorporated in the family pension scheme that 'marriage after retirement will not be recognised for the purpose of this scheme suffers from the vice of arbitrariness and discrimination. Thus, the limitation as incorporated in the family pension scheme is ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution and cannot sustain 9. For the reasons stated above, the writ application is allowed. The respondents are directed to allow the prayer of the petitioner for nomination of his wife to be entitled for benefit of family pension scheme. But in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.