Judgment :- P.K. Misra, J. 1. Heard Mr.Veluswami, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 2. The present second respondent had been subjected to departmental enquiry on the allegation of having committed bigamy and ultimately, he was inflicted with punishment of compulsory retirement. Thereafter, after the death of the first wife, the second respondent married the second wife once again, as is evident from the marriage certificate available on record. Since the second respondent had married again, he intimated to the department for including the name of the said lady as the nominee. Such application was rejected by the department on the ground that the second respondent had been punished because of the bigamous marriage with the said lady and therefore, the nomination in favour of the said lady cannot be accepted. 3. Such order of the department was successfully challenged before the Tribunal, which has observed that there was no bar in law to nominate the second wife as nominee for receiving the family pension after the death of the applicant. This order is challenged in the present writ petition. 4. In the present case, the department has overlooked the fact that after the death of the first wife, the second respondent (applicant before the Tribunal) had married the very same lady, with whom earlier he had contracted the bigamous marriage. Under such circumstances, there was no justification for the department in rejecting the nomination. 5. It is, no doubt, true that when a person contracts a bigamous marriage, which is not recognised in law depending upon the religion to which such person belongs, such second marriage does not confer the status of the wife on the woman concerned. However, even though such marriage was prohibited at that time, there is no bar for performing a fresh marriage with the very same woman, after the dissolution of the first marriage or after the death of the first wife. Under such circumstances, the department was not justified in denying the facility of nomination. It is, of course, true that the Tribunal had not adverted to all the aspects in detail. However, the ultimate order of the Tribunal has to be upheld. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. Consequently, connected M.P. is closed.