JUDGMENT : 1. Heard Mr. N.K. Murry, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. K.P. Bhattacharjee, learned GA for the respondent No. 1-4. 2. The brief facts of the instant case is that the husband of the petitioner Late Ulfat Ali Laskar, was serving as a Constable in the Meghalaya Police and retired from service on 01.07.1982. His first wife namely, Kabutun Nessa had pre-deceased him in the year 1975. 3. On 15.08.1985 the petitioner married Late Ulfat Ali Laskar and out of this wedlock, two children were born who are now major. Late Ulfat Ali Laskar died on 22.05.1993 leaving the petitioner as the only married surviving second wife. 4. On non-receipt of family pension, the petitioner had approached the respondents by way of a representation dated 27.02.2001 (Annexure-E) praying for the respondent No. 3 for grant of family pension. The respondent No. 3 thereafter vide reply dated 25.07.2001 (Annexure-H) informed the petitioner that no relief could be granted and further advised the petitioner to take recourse of the Court and also to approach the Accountant General of Meghalaya. Thereafter, the petitioner filed subsequent representations in the year 2006, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2015 and the final representation was filed on 4.07.2016 (Annexure-N). However, on receiving no reply to the last representation, the petitioner approached this Court by way of this writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously argued that by law the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit of family pension, inasmuch as the law permits the second wife who is married to a deceased employee after retirement to also be entitled to the same. To fortify his submissions, he has placed reliance on the judgment referred by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Smti. Bhagwanti v. Union of India: (1989) 4SCC 397. He also placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court (Shillong Bench) in the case of Binalish M. Sangma v. State of Meghalaya & Ors: (2009) 3 GLT 569 and the case of Ayatun Nessa v. State of Assam & Ors: 2004 (Supp) GLT 366. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-4 firstly has raised an objection as to the non-impleadment of the Accountant General of Meghalaya as necessary party, inasmuch as he submits that the Accountant General of Meghalaya is a necessary party in the process of release of pension and pension payment orders. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-4 firstly has raised an objection as to the non-impleadment of the Accountant General of Meghalaya as necessary party, inasmuch as he submits that the Accountant General of Meghalaya is a necessary party in the process of release of pension and pension payment orders. In reply to the other submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondent No. 1-4 also strongly submits that the deceased employee had expired on 22.05.1993 and the petitioner after sleeping over her rights preferred a representation only as late as on 27.02.2001 and as such, though by operation of law and by the amendment of the Meghalaya Civil Services (Pension) (Fifth Amendment) Rules, 2010 the petitioner would have become entitled to family pension, he submits that the entitlement if any, can only be approved from 2007. He further submits that no proof of marriage of the deceased employee with the petitioner has been filed before this Court and only averments have been made in the writ petition, and as such he submits before any order is passed the identity of the writ petitioner has to be ascertained. 7. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties. 8. With regard to the factum of marriage of the deceased employee with the petitioner, the learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn this Courts attention to the Succession Certificate granted by the Court of the Additional District Judge, Cachar Shilchar Assam, vide order dated 07.08.1993 wherein, the name indicated therein is of Mubazar Begum and also Mubazan Begum. On this point, this Court had voiced a doubt as to the correct identity of the person. Learned counsel for the petitioner then sought time to file an affidavit to show that Mubejan Bibi @ Mubejan Begum Laskar is one and the same person. By an additional affidavit filed on 21.05.2019, a duly sworn affidavit indicating the same has been annexed as Annexure-1 (A), at Para 6 of the said affidavit it is stated as follows: - "6. That MUBEJAN BIBI, MUBEJAN BEGUM LASKAR, MUBAZAN BEGUM and MUBEJAN BEGUM are same in one person having single identity i.e. myself." 9. By an additional affidavit filed on 21.05.2019, a duly sworn affidavit indicating the same has been annexed as Annexure-1 (A), at Para 6 of the said affidavit it is stated as follows: - "6. That MUBEJAN BIBI, MUBEJAN BEGUM LASKAR, MUBAZAN BEGUM and MUBEJAN BEGUM are same in one person having single identity i.e. myself." 9. Having laid this dispute to rest as to the identity of the writ petitioner from the affidavit coupled with other documents from the Gaon Panchayat Cachar, certifying that the writ petitioner was the wife of Late Ulfat Ali Laskar, the only other aspect for consideration is the extent of entitlement of the petitioner to the family pension and the arrears thereto. 10. It is to be noted that in the state of Meghalaya, prior to 04.11.2010, a second marriage after retirement was not recognized for the purpose of family pension. However, on amendment of the Meghalaya (Civil Service) Pension Rules, which was notified vide notification dated 04.11.2010, family pension is now admissible to post-retiral spouses and children born/adopted legally after retirement and the said amendment was made with effect from 01.01.2007. 11. In the present case, though the petitioner had as per averments married Late Ulfat Ali Laskar on 15.08.1985, this fact was only known to the respondents, on receipt of the representation in 2001 claiming for family pension. Family pension to the second wife of a deceased employee, at that point of time was not made admissible, in view of the position of the pension rules as they existed. However, with the amendment of 04.11.2010, the petitioner will now certainly be entitled to family pension. 12. As such, it is held that family pension is payable to the petitioner, however, only from the date the said amended pension rules have been brought into effect i.e. from 01.01.2007. The same shall be processed and computed accordingly by the respondents and the family pension and arrears as admissible and payable shall be made over and paid to the writ petitioner as expeditiously as possible without any further delay. 13. Writ petition is accordingly allowed to the extent indicated above and disposed of.