JUDGMENT AND ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. B. Gogoi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. A. Chetry, learned standing counsel, Pension and Public Grievances Department appearing for respondent No. 8, Mr. K.M. Haloi, learned counsel appearing for respondent No. 7, Mr. G. Baishya, learned standing counsel, Accountant General, Assam appearing for respondent No. 6, Mr. N. Goswami, learned State counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 4 and 5 and Mr. C. Bhattacharyya, learned standing counsel, Education (Secondary) Department appearing for respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3. 2. One Baneswar Nath, who was an Assistant Teacher in Ballamguri High School, expired on 5.5.2014. 3. The petitioner claims that she was married to Baneswar Nath as per Hindu rites and rituals in the year 1982 and out of their wedlock, four children were born. After expiry of her husband she applied for family pension and other retirement benefits. An application for grant of legal heir certificate was filed by her. In the process she came to learn that respondent No. 7 had also staked her claim as a wife of late Baneswar Nath and she had also filed an application for obtaining a legal heir certificate. After an enquiry, the respondent No. 4 had issued a legal heir certificate dated 1.9.2014 showing the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 as the first and second wife, respectively. 4. A petition was filed by the petitioner for grant of Succession Certificate in which respondent No. 7 was also made a party. 5. This instant application is filed by the petitioner on the ground that instead of contesting the case for grant of Succession Certificate being Misc. (SC) Case No. 9/2014, the respondent No. 7 was pursuing the authorities for finalizing the family pension and other retirement benefits in her name and the authorities had also started processing the same. Accordingly, the writ petition is filed praying for a direction to the respondents to process finalization of payment of family pension and other retirement benefits on account of Baneswar Nath in favour of the petitioner, she being the legally married wife and nominee of the said deceased person. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is filed praying for a direction to the respondents to process finalization of payment of family pension and other retirement benefits on account of Baneswar Nath in favour of the petitioner, she being the legally married wife and nominee of the said deceased person. 6. An affidavit was filed by the respondent No. 7 stating that no marriage was solemnized between the writ petitioner and Baneswar Nath and on the contrary, marriage was solemnized between her and Baneswar Nath on 13.5.1990 by the Subanshree – Lakhipur Branch of Srimanta Sankardev Sangha as per rites and rituals of the Sangha. It is also stated that the petitioner had deserted Baneswar Nath in the year 1988 and she had no relationship with the deceased husband of respondent No. 7. On the basis thereof, it is stated that being the legally married wife of Baneswar Nath she is entitled to family pension and other retirement benefits. It is also pleaded that she has contested Misc. (SC) Case No. 9/2014. 7. Respondent No. 4 had filed an affidavit stating that the order dated 4.2.1992 of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bongaigaon in Case No. 37/1990 arising out of a proceeding under Section 125 Cr. P.C. revealed that respondent No. 7 is the second wife of Baneswar Nath. 8. Respondent No. 6 had filed an affidavit stating that it has no role to play in authorizing family pension in respect of late Baneswar Nath as Ballamguri High School is a provincialised school. 9. By drawing attention of the Court to Annexure-1 document, which is a Nomination Certificate dated 1.2.1985 in respect of State Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1982, Mr. Gogoi has submitted that Baneswar Nath had appointed the petitioner as his nominee and she was shown as his wife. It is submitted by him that on the own version of respondent No. 7 that she had married the husband of the petitioner in the year 1990 goes to show that the so called marriage is a nullity, the same being subsequent to the marriage of the petitioner with Baneswar Nath, as the parties are governed by Hindu law. The plea that there was no marriage of the petitioner with Baneswar Nath is made only for the purpose of this case to sub-serve her own interest and no credence can be placed on such averments of the respondent No. 7. The plea that there was no marriage of the petitioner with Baneswar Nath is made only for the purpose of this case to sub-serve her own interest and no credence can be placed on such averments of the respondent No. 7. The submission of Mr. Gogoi is that respondent No. 7 is not entitled to any amount on account of family pension, death-cum-retirement gratuity and general provident fund. He has cited a decision in the case of Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar & ors., reported in (2000) 2 SCC 431 . 10. Mr. Haloi has submitted that the respondent No. 7 had contested Misc. (SC) Case No. 9/2014 and the amount of Life Insurance that was the subject matter of Succession Certificate was equally apportioned amongst all the sons and the daughters of Baneswar Nath including the children of respondent No. 7, mother of Baneswar Nath and the petitioner, but the respondent No. 7 was not given any share. He also supported the stand taken in the affidavit. 11. Mr. Chetry has submitted that death-cum-retirement gratuity and family pension are payable in terms of Rule 135 and Rule 143, respectively, of the Assam Services (Pension) Rules, 1969, for short, the Pension Rules. 12. Mr. Bhattacharyya and Mr. Sarma have submitted that on the basis of the Enquiry Report dated 1.8.2014, annexed as Annexure-5, respondent No. 7 appears to have come into life of Baneswar Nath after he had solemnized his marriage with the petitioner. 13. Mr. G. Baishya submits that Rule 30 of the General Provident Fund (Assam Services) Rules, 1937, for short, GPF Rules, provides the mode by which on the death of a subscriber the amount payable shall be made. 14. In Rameshwari Devi (supra), dispute was in relation to payment of family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity to two wives of Narayan Lal. Narayan Lal had solemnized his marriage with Rameshwari Devi and thereafter, during the subsistence of the valid marriage, Narayan Lal had married for the second time with Yogmaya Devi. The appeal before the Supreme Court was against an order of the writ appellate court upholding the judgment of the Single Judge whereby he had held that children born to Narayan Lal from the wed-lock with Yogmaya were entitled to share of the family pension and death-cum-retirement gratuity and further that family pension would be admissible to the minor children only till they attained majority. 15. It was held by the Supreme Court that the marriage between Narayan Lal and Yogmaya Devi was in contravention of Clause (i) of Section 5 of Hindi Marriage Act, 1955 and therefore, was a void marriage and so, Yogmaya Devi cannot be described as a widow of Narayan Lal, her marriage with Narayan Lal being void. It was also held that sons born out of the wedlock of Narayan Lal and Yogmaya Devi being legitimate sons of Narayan Lal would be entitled to the property of Narayan Lal in equal shares along with sons born from the marriage of Rameshwari Devi with Narayan Lal. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed upholding the judgments of the High Court. 16. Clause (ii) under Note 2 of Rule 135(5) of the Pension Rules deals with when death-cum-retirement gratuity/residuary gratuity is payable to the nominee or members of the family of the Government servant/pensioner, who dies while in service or within five years of retirement. Clause (ii)(a) thereof provides that if the Government servant had executed a nomination in prescribed form under Rule 136 and nomination subsists, the Head of the Office/Department is to send an intimation to the nominee(s) after receipt of death report of the Government servant/pensioner for lodging a formal claim. If there is no nomination or the nomination does not subsist, the intimation is required to be sent to all the adult members of the family. Note 1 under Rule 143 (ii) provides that in cases where there are two or more widows, pension will be payable to the eldest surviving widow and on her death, it will be payable to the next surviving widow, if any. It is also provided that the term “eldest” would mean seniority with reference to the date of marriage. Rule 30 of the GPF Rules provides that in case of a valid and subsisting nomination, the amount becomes payable to the nominee or nominees in the proportions specified in the nomination. It is also provided that the term “eldest” would mean seniority with reference to the date of marriage. Rule 30 of the GPF Rules provides that in case of a valid and subsisting nomination, the amount becomes payable to the nominee or nominees in the proportions specified in the nomination. In the event of there being no nomination in favour of member or members of the family, or if such nomination relates only to a part of the standing to his credit in the Fund, the whole amount or the part thereof to which the nomination does not relate, as the case may be, shall, notwithstanding any nomination purporting to be in favour of any person or persons other than a member or members of his family become payable to the members of his family in equal shares. Having regard to the subject matter of dispute, it will not be necessary for this Court to dilate and discuss the relevant provisions in detail. 17. In view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in Rameshwari Devi (supra), a marriage solemnized by a Hindu after the coming into force of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 during the subsistence of the first marriage is void. Therefore, any reference to two or more widows such as the one under Note 1 under Rule 143 (ii) of Pension Rules cannot be made applicable in respect of a Hindu widow whose marriage was solemnized after coming into force of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 during the subsistence of a marriage. 18. Disbursement of pensionery benefits cannot wait till a civil court pronounces rights of the parties and it is difficult to assume that any of the parties will take recourse to remedy under civil law. Even if it is taken, chances are that it will be a long-drawn affair. 19. If there is a valid and subsisting nomination, death-cum-retirement gratuity and GPF amount has to be paid to the nominees in accordance with the relevant Rules. Even if there is no valid and subsisting nomination, it will be permissible for the Government to disburse pensionery benefits including GPF, in the absence of any adjudication by a civil court in respect of status of the petitioner and the respondent No. 7 vis-à-vis Baneswar Nath on the basis of an enquiry, which is bona fide and reasonable and which cannot be termed as sham. 20. 20. A nomination does not have the effect of conferring on the nominee a beneficial interest on the amount payable. It only specifies the person who is authorized to receive the amount and with the payment of the amount to such nominee, there is a valid discharge of payment. A nominee cannot be equated to be the only person entitled to amount in question and therefore, amount received by the nominee can be claimed by the heirs in accordance with law of succession governing them. 21. In the instant case, it is seen that an enquiry was conducted as is evident from Annexure-5, letter dated 1.8.2014 of the Circle Officer, Bijni Revenue Circle addressed to the Sub-Divisional Officer (C), Bijni Sub-division on the basis of which legal heir certificate was issued wherein the respondent No. 7 is shown as the second wife. Furthermore, Baneswar Nath had himself nominated the petitioner vide Annexure-1 as a nominee for the benefits under the State Government Employees Group Insurance Scheme, 1982 showing her as his wife. This nomination is dated 1.2.1985. The respondent No. 7 claims to have married Baneswar Nath only in the year 13.5.1990. In Misc. (SC) Case 9/2014, as submitted by Mr. Haloi, no share of the amount of Life Insurance was given to the respondent No. 7. As per the Enquiry Report, mother of Baneswar Nath had also stated that the petitioner is her daughter-in-law and her son had left her and her children in the lurch and had started living with another girl, presumably the respondent No. 7. Even if the petitioner was not residing with Baneswar Nath, the same will not alter the status in absence of a decree of dissolution of marriage. 22. Prima facie, materials on record would go to show that the petitioner is the first married wife of Baneswar Nath. In view of the above discussion, respondent No. 7 will not be entitled to pension and other retirement benefits. Respondent No. 7 will, however, be at liberty to approach the civil court seeking a declaration that she is the first legally married wife of late Baneswar Nath and to pray for consequential benefits. 23. In view of the above discussion, the respondent authorities will proceed to disburse the amounts in connection with death-cum-retirement benefit, pension, GPF, etc. Respondent No. 7 will, however, be at liberty to approach the civil court seeking a declaration that she is the first legally married wife of late Baneswar Nath and to pray for consequential benefits. 23. In view of the above discussion, the respondent authorities will proceed to disburse the amounts in connection with death-cum-retirement benefit, pension, GPF, etc. payable in relation to Baneswar Nath in accordance with the extant Rules and in accordance with law bearing in mind the observations made herein above. 24. The writ petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid directions and observations. No cost.