JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dt. 21.12.2015 and to release the Family Pension to the petitioner.) 1. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is direct the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 21.12.2015, and release family pension to the petitioner. 2. The petitioner states that her husband Late Sri R.Ramalingam was working as Fireman Driver in the Fire Services Department and voluntarily retired from service on 31.03.1997. The husband of the writ petitioner died on 27.07.1998. The petitioner claims that she is the only nominee of her husband Late Sri R.Ramalingam and she is the second wife of the deceased employee. The first wife Valliammal died on 17.05.1996 before the retirement of her husband from service. The petitioner further states that she is having one son, namely, Sri R.Gunasekar and he was a minor when the writ petition was filed. The minor son was receiving family pension during the relevant point of time. However, on attaining majority, the family pension was not paid to the writ petitioner. In this regard, the petitioner submitted a representation to grant family pension and the respondents have not considered and thus, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the 2nd respondent, relying on the counter affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent, states that, while verifying the nomination entries in the Service Register for authorising the Life Time arrears of revised pensionary benefits to the nominees, it was noticed that, in the nomination filed in the year 1974, Smt.Valliammal had been declared as nominee and wife of the deceased Government servant. Whereas, in the pension proposal, dated 12.08.1997, received in the office of the 2nd respondent, Smt.Meenakshi/writ petitioner has been identified as wife of the Government servant. Whereas, in the pension proposal, dated 12.08.1997, received in the office of the 2nd respondent, Smt.Meenakshi/writ petitioner has been identified as wife of the Government servant. As there was an ambiguity, whether the writ petitioner was the legitimate wife of the deceased Ramalingam, the 2nd respondent issued a Stop Payment Order through telegram, dated 01.10.1999, to the Pension Pay Office, Chennai - 6, under intimation to the petitioner and the documentary evidence for the proof of the second marriage, Death Certificate of first wife and the Date of Birth of the children born through first and second wives, were called for by the office of the 2nd respondent for authorising family pension. Subsequently, both the Pension Pay Books were returned from the Pension Pay Office on 14.10.1999. In the Legal Heirship Certificate, dated 28.05.1999, of the deceased Government servant, issued by the Tahsildar, Thondaiyarpet, Chennai, the following members were identified as his Legal Heirs: i. Smt.Rajeswari (First wife daughter-DOB-8.8.70) ii. Smt.Nirmaladevi (First wife daughter- DOB-4.4.73) iii. Sri.R.Ravikumar (First wife son-DOB-7.7.76) iv. Sri.R.Balaji (First wife son-DOB-10.8.79) v. Selvi.R.Yogalakshmi (First wife daughter -DOB-31.7.82) vi. Smt. Meenakshi (Second wife) vii. Selvan R.Gunasekaran (Second wife son-DOB-21.1.88) 4. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent further submits that, based on the Legal Heirship Certificate, Death Certificate and the family pension proposal forwarded by the Departmental officer, the 2nd respondent authorised family pension to the following members, as per the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules: i. Sri.R.Balaji (DOB-10.8.79) - 1st wife son (50% family pension paid from 7.7.2001 to 9.8.2004 upto 25 years) ii. Kum.R.Yogalakshmi (DOB-31.7.82 - daughter of 1st wife (50% family pension from 10.8.2004 to 30.7.2007 upto 25 Years) iii. Selvan.R.Gunasekaran (DOB-21.1.88) - son of Second wife (a) authorised 50% family pension from 28.7.98 upto 20.1.2006 as minor son through Meenakshi. (b) authorised 50% family pension from 21.1.2006 to 30.7.2007 (date upto which children of 1st wife were eligible for remaining 50% family pension) (c) authorised 100% family pension from 31.7.2007 to 20.1.2013 (upto 25 years) 5. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent further submits that, Smt.Valliyammal is the first wife as seen from the Legal Heirship Certificate, and it is evident from the Death Certificate of the first wife (DOD 21.5.1996) that Sri.R.Gunasekaran (DOB-21.1.1988), son of Second wife Smt.Meenakshi, was born prior to the death of the first wife. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent further submits that, Smt.Valliyammal is the first wife as seen from the Legal Heirship Certificate, and it is evident from the Death Certificate of the first wife (DOD 21.5.1996) that Sri.R.Gunasekaran (DOB-21.1.1988), son of Second wife Smt.Meenakshi, was born prior to the death of the first wife. Hence, the marriage between Smt.Meenakshi/writ petitioner and the Government servant should have taken place during the subsistence of first marriage. Therefore, as per Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978, only if the second wife is married after the death or divorce of first wife, the second wife will be eligible for family pension. In the instant case, the petitioner/Smt.Meenakshi, having married Late Sri Ramalingam during the subsistence of his first marriage, the same is null and void in the eye of law. Hence, the petitioner is not entitled to receive family pension. 6.The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent referred to the Rules/Orders governing the grant of family pension in respect of cases involving two wives and their children, which are as follows: (a) As per Rule 49(7)(a)(1) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, where family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to widows in equal shares. (b) As per Explanation under Rule 49(7) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, the second wife shall be eligible for the benefit of family pension only if the second marriage is – i. solemnized as per the customary law prevailed among the community before the date of commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or ii. solemnized under the Mohammedan Law in which bigamy is permissible. (c) Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which dealt with the condition for valid Hindu Marriage, reads as follows: "5. Conditions of a Hindu Marriage: A marriage may be solemnised between any two Hindus if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely: i. Neither party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage" (d) The Government of Tamil Nadu, in their letter No.80668/Pension/88-12, dated 29.06.1990 [Finance (Pension) Department], had clarified that: "I am to clarify that the intention of the above Rule is to allow Family Pension in equal shares only to legally wedded wives. In the case of a Government Servant who solemnised second marriage when his first marriage subsisted, the second wife cannot claim the status of a wife in the eye of Law. The provision of Law is that where there is a marriage subsisting, no person can legally solemnise another marriage and if a second marriage is effected either by registration or otherwise, that marriage is a nullity and as such the second wife is not entitled to claim Family Pension". (e) In Government letter No.112351/Pension/90-4 [Finance (Pension) Department], dated 02.06.1992, it is stated as follows: "The second wife gets the status of legal wife in two cases viz. (1) Second marriage solemnized as per the customary law among the Community before coming into force of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955 and (2) the second marriage solemnised as per legal requirements in the case of persons governed by Mohammedan Law where bigamy is permissible. Hence these are the two cases where second marriage is to be considered as valid and second wife is eligible for the benefit available to the widow under the Pension Rules." 7. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent further submits that the family pension payable in respect of the deceased R.Ramalingam was authorized as indicated above, conforming to the Rules in force. Sri.R.Gunasekaran (DOB-21.01.1988), son of the petitioner, received family pension upto the age of 25 years and thereafter, on attaining 25 years on 21.01.2013, family pension authorized in favour of her son was stopped as per above rules. In response to the petitioner's representation, dated 21.12.2015, the 2nd respondent, vide letter dated 18.05.2017, informed the petitioner that family pension is not admissible to second wife, if the second marriage is contracted during the life time of first wife, and hence, family pension is not admissible to her and that the children born through second wife are entitled to a share if they satisfy the conditions prescribed by Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, till they attain 25 years of age and thereafter, the pension will be stopped. 8. 8. In view of the facts and circumstances, more specifically, the fact that the marriage between the writ petitioner and the deceased Government employee was solemnized during the life time of the 1st wife, the marriage of the writ petitioner with the deceased Government employee was considered as null and void, and consequently, the 2nd respondent arrived at a conclusion that the family pension cannot be granted to the writ petitioner in accordance with the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978. Thus, this Court do not find any infirmity in respect of the decision taken by the 2nd respondent regarding the rejection of family pension to the writ petitioner. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.