Judgment : The petitioner was working as Special Grade typist in Government Periyar EVR College, at Trichirapalli and he retired from service on 30.6.1996 and was getting superannuation pension from 1.7.1996. He got married to one Mumtaj Begum in the year 1963. While she was alive, the petitioner got married to one S.K.Sythani Bi, who was employed as a Government Servant and was working as Secondary Grade Teacher in the Government High School, Pudukottai District. 2. The second marriage took place on 12.9.1971. It is not stated in the affidavit as to whether any permission from the Government was obtained either by the petitioner or by the second wife S.K. Sythani Bi, in terms of Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules 1973. 3. Be that as it may, unfortunately, the second wife employed as Secondary Grade Teacher died on 6.7.1972 without any issue. Thereafter, the petitioner staked his claim for family pension on account of the death of his second wife and got the same. However, by an order dated 6.2.2004 the pension paid to him on account of the death of his second wife was stopped by the second respondent. Rule 49(6) was relied upon for the purpose of stopping the family pension. Rule 49(6) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978, clearly states that the period for the family pension is payable in the case of widower or widow upto the date of death or remarriage whichever is earlier. It is this order under challenge in W.P. (MD) No. 739 of 2004. 4. In W.P.(MD)No.734 of 2004, the petitioner has come forward to challenge the action taken by the respondents in not paying the Dearness Allowance and the pension payable towards the death of the petitioners second wife. 5. When the matter was admitted, the third respondent has filed a detailed counter affidavit in both cases. In respect of denial of Dearness Allowance, reliance is placed upon State Governments order in G.O. Ms. No. 191, Fin (P) Dept., dated 16.3.1996, wherein it has been directed that Dearness Allowance on Family Pension shall be suspended if a family pensioner is employed in any employment under State or Central Government or any other body on fixed pay or time scale of pay upon which Dearness Allowance on pay is already allowed. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner had not challenged the said Government Order. 6. Admittedly, the petitioner had not challenged the said Government Order. Therefore, the Writ petition in W.P.(MD)No.734 of 2004 is liable to be rejected on this ground. In any event, the said writ petition is based upon his right to seek family pension on account of death of second wife which right itself is disputed in terms of Rule 49(6) and that is under challenge in W.P.No.739 of 2004. If that writ petition fails then the question of 2nd Dearness Relief on pension issue will automatically become infructuous. 7. In W.P. No. 739 of 2004, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the first marriage took place in 1963 and therefore it cannot be said that he remarried after retirement of his second wife. Therefore, that clause will not apply. 8. This argument fails to the ground as the status of a person to get family pension is determined only by his marital status, whether it is in respect of husband or wife. In the present case, the petitioner can said to be a widower is a question to be considered. Though in the Dictionary, the meaning of the word ‘Widower’ is defined as: “a man who has lost his wife by death and has not married again." (See CONCISE OXFORD ENGLISH DICTIONARY 11th Edn: 2004) 9. Even such a definition may be relevant to interpret provisions of Section 14(3) of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1955 because by that time monogamy has been legislatively prescribed. Further, the terms are defined may be in relation to the succession of the property of the deceased wife. But in the present context, we have to see the reason behind the restriction imposed by the Pension Rules in relation to the entitlement to get family pension. 10. But in the case of the petitioner, the first wife is still alive. The petitioner cannot be called as widower so as to enable the enjoyment of the family pension on account of the death of his second wife, who was in a pensionable service. Therefore, going into the question as to whether there was any remarriage does not arise. 11. In any event, as pointed out earlier, unless the Government Servant seeks permission from the Government under Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules 1973, the second marriage is contrary to the rules and impermissible. Therefore, going into the question as to whether there was any remarriage does not arise. 11. In any event, as pointed out earlier, unless the Government Servant seeks permission from the Government under Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules 1973, the second marriage is contrary to the rules and impermissible. The Government need not even take note of the rule. This rule applies even in cases of Mohammedans whose personal law permits a second marriage. 12. Therefore, the contention that the second marriage was a valid marriage and the Government is liable to pay pension in respect of such a marriage fails, as admittedly no prior permission was obtained. In fact, Rule 19 of the Tamil Nadu Government Servant Conduct Rules 1973 enable the State Government to take disciplinary action in case of violation of Rule 19. The petitioner somehow escaped from any action. 13. The petitioner is already drawing pension on account of his own retirement and cannot stake a claim and seek for a direction from this Court contrary to the pension Rules, more particularly, Rule 49 of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules. 14. In view of the same, both the writ petitions fail and accordingly will stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed. Petition dismissed.