JUDGMENT : A. Pasayat, J. - Two applications were filed before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack (hereinafter called 'the Tribunal') relating to claims in respect of a deceased employee of the Postal Department. While Original Application No. 370 of 1996 was filed by the present petitioner-Parwati Dash, Original Application No. 584 of 1996 was filed by opposite party No. 8. Santilata Dash. Both claimed to be legally married wives of one Shaktidhar Dash (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased'), who, while working as the Sub-Post Master of Chandikhol under Cuttack North Division, died on 10.4.1995. Santilata filed the application claiming family pension and other benefits and along with the application she enclosed a Decided on 11th August, 1998. legal heir certificate dated 14.8.1995 issued, by the Tahasildar, Dharmasala, which contained five persons including the present petitioner and opposite party No. 8 and three children, namely, Puspalata, Jitendra and Rajendra as the legal heirs. As the name of the petitioner was included, an appeal was filed by opposite party No. 8 before the Sub-Collector, Jajpur, who decided that Santilata married the deceased in the year 1972 as per the Hindu rites and customs, but due to certain differences, Santilata remained with her parents. The deceased remained with her parents. The deceased re-married Parwati Dash, the present petitioner, though Santilata was alive. The Pass Book bearing No. 119397 in the name of Santilata which was opened in Mirzapur Post Office on 8.11.1974 was taken into consideration by the Sub-Collector and a finding was recorded that there was no divorce between Santilata and the deceased-Shaktidhar. The three children referred to above were born in the wed lock between the deceased and Parwati. The legal heir certificate granted by the Tahasildar, Dharmasala, was held to be modifiable to the extent that Santilata was the legally married wife of the deceased and was entitled to get the legal heir certificate. Accordingly, the legal heir certificate issued on 14.8.1996 in favour of Parwati was nullified. Santilata's stand in essence was that during her life-time, if any marriage was solemnised, the same was a void marriage u/s 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Parwati's case was based on a nomination made by the deceased for family pension and D.C.R.C.. No nomination was made in respect of the general provident fund. Santilata's stand in essence was that during her life-time, if any marriage was solemnised, the same was a void marriage u/s 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act. Parwati's case was based on a nomination made by the deceased for family pension and D.C.R.C.. No nomination was made in respect of the general provident fund. Parwati also filed a photo-copy of the identity card issued by the Election Commission and a certificate issued by the Headmaster of an educational institution. 2. The Tribunal examined the documents and came to hold that where an employee entered into a wed-lock during the life time of the wife, the latter marriage had no validity in law, but illegitimate children were entitled to the benefits available in terms of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act as amended by Act 68 of 1976. It is to be noted that under Rule 50 (6) of the C.C.S. (Pension) Rules, 1972, 'family' has been defined in relation to a Government servant to mean "wife or wives including judicially separated wife or wives in the case of a male Government servant". Under Rule 54 (7) of the aforesaid Rules, it has been clarified by instructions from the Ministry of Law that second marriage by a Hindu male after the commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 during the life-time of the first wife would be a nullity. That being the position, the inevitable conclusion is that the benefits are to be given to the legally married wife and the illegitimate children. It is to be noted that the Tribunal took note of the Government of India Decision No. 13 which specifically stated that the lady claiming to have married during the life-time of the wife is not entitled to family pension under the Hindu Marriage At. Rule 54 (7)(a)(i) of the CCS. (Pension) Rules, makes a provision for division of family pension between the two wives but this question can arise only when the other lady is a legally married wife and not otherwise. Family pension is to be paid only to the legally married wife. 3. Judged from the aforesaid background, the conclusion of the Tribunal that Santilata was the legally married wife while Parwati was not, does not suffer from any infirmity. Family pension is to be paid only to the legally married wife. 3. Judged from the aforesaid background, the conclusion of the Tribunal that Santilata was the legally married wife while Parwati was not, does not suffer from any infirmity. However, the three children of Parwati and Santilata are entitled to an equal share in the G.P.F. and D.C.R.G. As one of the children, namely, Puspalata Dash has attained majority, she is entitled to her share on her own right, in case she is unmarried. In case of other two children, the dues are only to be paid to their mother" guardian. In regard to family pension, same is to be payable only to Santilata. A further direction is also given so far as compassionate appointment is concerned. The conclusions are essentially factual and have been arrived at after taking note of the relevant statutory provisions. That being the position, we are not inclined to entertain the writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order to costs. S.C. Datta, J. 4. I agree. Final Result : Dismissed