JUDGMENT : SOUMITRA SAIKIA, J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the Judgment and Order dated 22.02.2021 passed in W.P. (C) No. 533/2018 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 in the present appeal was allowed and the impugned Orders dated 14.09.2017 and 16.12.2017 passed by the respondents/Authorities, whereby the appellant was held to be entitled to receive family pension of Late Parbananda Kalita, were set aside and quashed. Being aggrieved the present appeal has been filed. 2. The appellant claimed to be the first legally wedded wife of Late Parbananda Kalita. Deceased employee, at the relevant point in time, was employed as a Driver in the erstwhile “Assam State Electricity Board” (ASEB) now known as “Assam Power Distribution Company Limited” (hereinafter referred as “APDCL”). Late Parbananda Kalita retired from service on 31.05.2012. He received his pension on 03.05.2013. Subsequently, however, he expired on 02.07.2016. After the expiry of Late Kalita, the appellant namely, Smti Hiron Kalita and the respondent No. 1 (petitioner in the writ petition) namely, Smt. Sabita Kalita approached the APDCL Authorities, each staking their claims for family pension as the legally wedded wife of Late Parbananda Kalita. The APDCL by communication dated 18.01.2017 and 20.03.2017 informed both the appellant as well as the respondent No. 1 to appear before the Authorities and submit documents in support of their claims for receiving the family pension as the wife of Late Parbananda Kalita. It may be stated herein that during the entire service tenure Late Parbananda Kalita did not nominate either the appellant or the respondent No. 1 as a nominee to receive the family pension and other service benefits in the event of his death. However, pursuant to his retirement, the appellant nominated the appellant as the person entitled to receive family pension in the event of his death. The APDCL Authorities by order dated 03.05.2013, while sanctioning the pensionary benefits to Late Parbananda Kalita on his superannuation on 31.05.2012 mentioned the name of the appellant as the person entitled to receive the pensionary benefit upon the death of Late Parbananda Kalita. 3. The APDCL Authorities by order dated 03.05.2013, while sanctioning the pensionary benefits to Late Parbananda Kalita on his superannuation on 31.05.2012 mentioned the name of the appellant as the person entitled to receive the pensionary benefit upon the death of Late Parbananda Kalita. 3. The writ petitioner (respondent No. 1 herein) in support of her contention that she is the first wife of Late Parbananda Kalita, relied upon the Death Certificate issued on 11.07.2016 by the Competent Authority, wherein she was shown as the wife of the deceased Late Parbananda Kalita, who expired on 02.07.2016. She has also referred to the deposition of Late Parbananda Kalita in M.R. Case No. 08/1997, which case was filed by the respondent No. 1/petitioner under Section 125 Cr.P.C. seeking maintenance from Late Parbananda Kalita. The said case was filed as some differences arose between the respondent No. 1 and the deceased employee after their marriage and pursuant to which they had been living separately. However, they were not divorced. The fact that she is the legal wife of Late Parbananada Kalita is evident from the deposition of the deceased himself before the Court. The deceased on oath had deposed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Pathsala at Barpeta in the said M.R. Case No. 08/1997 that the respondent No. 1/writ petitioner was his first wife. 4. That apart, on the basis of the depositions made therein that the respondent No. 1/petitioner was the first wife of Late Parbananda Kalita, by Judgment dated 26.05.1998 passed in M.R. Case No. 811/1997 under Section 125 Cr.P.C. the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bajali, Pathsala directed that a maintenance amount of Rs. 300/- (Rupees three hundred) only per month and Rs. 100/- (Rupees one hundred) only per month for their daughter, Smti Dipanita Kalita be paid until further orders. Family identity card enclosed to the writ petition is also relied upon by the petitioner to show that the cardholder’s name was reflected as Late Parbananda Kalita and his family comprises of the respondent No. 1/petitioner and their daughters. The said card was issued by the Deputy Director, Food and Civil Supply, Barpeta. A Certificate dated 22.07.2016 issued by the Howly Nagar Samity is also relied upon by the respondent No. 1/petitioner to show that she is the wife of Late Parbananda Kalita. 5. The said card was issued by the Deputy Director, Food and Civil Supply, Barpeta. A Certificate dated 22.07.2016 issued by the Howly Nagar Samity is also relied upon by the respondent No. 1/petitioner to show that she is the wife of Late Parbananda Kalita. 5. The APDCL authorities as well as the appellant as respondent No. 7 in the writ petition duly contested the claims made by the petitioner (respondent No. 1 in the present appeal). In the pleadings filed before the learned Single Judge, the appellant had relied upon a Marriage Certificate executed by a Notarized Deed dated 08.03.1982 to contend that she was the legally wedded wife of Late Parbananda Kalita and that she had been living as his first wife. It was contended that this fact was known to the petitioner/respondent No. 1 in the present appeal and who had deliberately concealed the same in the writ petition filed. The appellant has also relied upon a certificate dated 08.03.1982 issued by the local Gaonburah in support of her contention that she is the wife of Late Parbananda Kalita. That apart, she has also enclosed the affidavits executed by the daughters, born out of the wedlock of the Late Parbananda Kalita and Smt. Sabita Kalita (petitioner/respondent no. 1), to contend that the daughters executed the affidavit in support of the appellant stating that they had all along believed her to be their natural mother and that she was responsible for their upbringing as well as getting them married off. 6. The official respondents i.e. APDCL also filed their affidavit. In the said affidavit, there is a categorical averment that on the basis of Marriage Certificate dated 08.03.1982 submitted by the respondent No. 7/the appellant herein, whereby the APDCL Authorities vide impugned order dated 14.09.2017 rejected the claim of the respondent no. 1/petitioner towards family pension and declined to interfere with the family pension granted to the appellant vide an earlier order dated 03.05.2013. In the said affidavit, the APDCL Authorities contended that proper enquiry was made to decide the issue as to who is the legal wife of the pensioner i.e. Late Parbananda Kalita. However, on the basis of the Marriage Certificate referred above, the pension granted to the appellant was not interfered with by the APDCL authorities. The said paragraph is extracted below: “5. However, on the basis of the Marriage Certificate referred above, the pension granted to the appellant was not interfered with by the APDCL authorities. The said paragraph is extracted below: “5. That with regard to the statement made in paragraphs 8, 9, 10 and 11 to the writ petition the deponent respectfully states that Late Parbananda Kalita retired from service on 31.05.2012 as vehicle driver and accordingly he submitted an application for sanction of pension/DCR gratuity before the AGM, Barpeta Electrical Division mentioning Smti Hiran Kalita (Respondent No. 7) as his wife. Accordingly, the AGM, Barpeta Electrical Division (Respondent No. 6) forwarded all the pension papers to the Chief General Manager (D), APDCL, LAZ, Bijulee Bhawan, Paltan Bazar, Guwahati for necessary action. It is pertinent to mention here that in FORM No. 14 i.e. Form of application for the grant of F.P on the death of Board’s employee/ Pensioner, Smt Hiran Kalita (Respondent no. 7) had furnished all her particular as wife of Late Parbananda Kalita in the month of January, 2013. Considering all the particulars submitted by Parbananda Kalita and Respondent No. 7, the authority sanctioned pension in favour of Parbananda Kalita on 03.05.2013. The deponent further respectfully states that after expiry of the Parbananda Kalita on 02.07.2016 both Smti Hiran Kalita (Respondent No. 7) and Smt Sabita Kalita (Petitioner) had claimed for family pension. Thereafter, Assistant General Manager, Barpeta Electrical Division, APDCL, LAR, Barpeta (Respondent No. 6) issued letter to both petitioner and Respondent No. 7 for submission of documents relating to their marriage with Late Parbananda Kalita in support of their claims. The Deputy Personnel Manager, O/O the Chief General Manager (D), APDCL, LAR (Respondent No-4), Bijulee Bhawan, Guwahati-1 after verification of all the records submitted by both the petitioner and Respondent No. 7, passed an office order bearing no. CGM(D)/APDCL(LAR) PEN/BEC/21/Part-II/4 dated 14.09.17, whereby on the basis of the marriage certificate dated 8.03.1982 submitted by Respondent No. 7, considered her as first wife of Late Parabananda Kalita. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is not entitled for family pension as second wife which was duly communicated to her by the Deputy Personnel Manager, Office of the Chief General Manager (D) APDCL (LAR) (Respondent No-4) vide his letter dated 14.09.2017. Therefore, considering all the aspects petitioner's claim for family pension is not maintainable.” 7. It is also pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is not entitled for family pension as second wife which was duly communicated to her by the Deputy Personnel Manager, Office of the Chief General Manager (D) APDCL (LAR) (Respondent No-4) vide his letter dated 14.09.2017. Therefore, considering all the aspects petitioner's claim for family pension is not maintainable.” 7. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties extensively and have perused the pleadings available on record as well as the Judgment passed by the learned Single Judge impugned in the present writ appeal. 8. The learned Single Judge considered the contentions made by the parties as well as the pleadings filed by the parties. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the assertion of the appellant that she is the first wife and was married to Late Parbananda Kalita on 08.03.1982 i.e. prior to the marriage of the respondent No. 1/petitioner on 16.10.1983 is solely based upon a simple marriage deed dated 08.03.1982. The learned single Judge held that the said document cannot be considered to be a valid document in the eye of law. It was held that as per Hindu Law, marriage is a sacrament and not an agreement and that the said document cannot confer any status of marriage to either party. It was held that the conclusion of the APDCL Authorities that the appellant is the legally wedded wife of the deceased on the basis of the said marriage deed has no force of law. The learned Single Judge also held that the proper opportunity to prove her status along with relevant documents were not granted to the petitioner. It was also held that the nomination submitted by the employee after retirement in favour of the appellant is impermissible. The learned Single Judge declined to accept the contentions of the APDCL authorities and the respondent no. 7/appellant that she was the first wife of the deceased and upheld the claim of the petitioner/respondent no. 1 herein to the family pension of the deceased Late Parmananda Kalita. The learned Single Judge declined to accept the contentions of the APDCL authorities and the respondent no. 7/appellant that she was the first wife of the deceased and upheld the claim of the petitioner/respondent no. 1 herein to the family pension of the deceased Late Parmananda Kalita. Relying on the Judgment of the Apex Court in Rameshwari Devi vs. State of Bihar, 2003 (3) GLT 400 and Suraiya Sultana vs. State of Assam and Others, 2008 (3) GLR 589, the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the first wife is entitled to get pension being the legally wedded widow and that the second marriage is void and not recognized in law. Reference to Section 5(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act was also made, wherein it is stated that at the time of marriage under the Act, neither party must have a spouse living at the time of marriage. It was further held that under Rule 26(1) of the Civil Service Conduct Rules, no Government servant who has a wife living shall contact marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government. Referring to the Judgment of this Court in Miss Fazila Begum vs. State of Assam and Others, 2009 (3) GLR 201, the learned Single Judge held that under Rule 143 of the Assam Services Pension Rules, it is only the legally married wife who was entitled to retirement benefits and that the second wife cannot accrue any legal right to get the pension. The learned Single Judge referring to the law laid down to the Deokinandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar and Others, AIR 1971 SC 1409 held that the pension is a property within the meaning of Article 31(1) of the Constitution of India and therefore, State cannot by any executive order, curtail or abolish the right of public servant to receive pension. The impugned order accordingly was quashed and set aside. 9. We have given our conscious thoughts to the submissions made and upon pleadings available on record. We have also carefully perused the Judgment impugned by the learned Single Judge in the present proceedings. 10. As discussed above, specific averments were made by the respondents/APDCL in their affidavit filed that the impugned order dated 14.09.2017 was issued relying only on the Marriage Certificate/Deed of Marriage furnished by the appellant. We have also carefully perused the Judgment impugned by the learned Single Judge in the present proceedings. 10. As discussed above, specific averments were made by the respondents/APDCL in their affidavit filed that the impugned order dated 14.09.2017 was issued relying only on the Marriage Certificate/Deed of Marriage furnished by the appellant. The said Deed of Marriage is not a Marriage Certificate issued by the prescribed statutory authorities who are empowered to issue such Marriage Certificates. The said Deed of Marriage on a plain reading does not confer the status of marriage on either party. Accordingly, in the absence of any other contemporaneous evidence relied upon by the APDCL authorities, the order dated 14.09.2017 sanctioning the pensionary benefits/family pension in favour of the appellant relying solely on the Deed of Marriage is without any legal basis. The APDCL authorities have not even referred to the relevant provisions of the Regulations/Rules under which such provision is available. In the absence of any sanction in law, such action by a public authority like APDCL cannot be accepted to be legally valid. 11. In the said affidavit, there is no reference made to the order dated 03.05.2013 issued by the APDCL authorities, where it is provided that upon the death of the pensioner i.e. Late Parbananda Kalita, the family pension would be payable to the appellant namely Smt. Hiron Kalita. No reference to any Rules/Regulations or circulars etc. is brought on record or even referred to during the course of hearing by the APDCL authorities to support its impugned order as well as the order dated 03.05.2013, wherein the name of the appellant was shown as the nominee to receive the family pension after the death of the pensioner i.e. Late Parbananda Kalita. 12. No reference has been made as regards any Rules/Regulations relating to the grant of family pension being available under the APDCL. In the absence of any such specific or special Rules and Regulations applicable to the APDCL or its employees, the General Rules i.e. the provisions of the Assam (Services) Pension Rules, 1969 will have to be made applicable. In the absence of any special Rules to the contrary, the nominations referred to under Rule 143 of the Assam (Services) Pension Rules, 1969 will be applicable. In the absence of any special Rules to the contrary, the nominations referred to under Rule 143 of the Assam (Services) Pension Rules, 1969 will be applicable. Any nomination that may have been made even by the pensioner, which is contrary to the permissions specified in the Assam (Services) Pension Rules 1969 will be inoperative. The mandate of the statute cannot be defeated by making any nomination by any person including the pensioner which is contrary to the provisions of the Statute. [G.L. Bhatia vs. Union of India and Another, (1999) 5 SCC 237 ]. 13. Under the circumstances, we are not persuaded to interfere with the impugned order dated 22.02.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) No. 533/2018. The writ appeal is therefore devoid any merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.