ORDER : Surepalli Nanda, J. Heard Sri Muhammad Veqar Hussain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned Government Pleader for Services (Home), appearing on behalf of respondents. 2. The petitioner approached the Court seeking prayer as under: “…to issue a writ in nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of Respondent No.2 in rejecting the Petitioners’ Pension Application dt. 24-08-2021 through Memo dt. 17-03-2022 vide No. E1/1101/Pension/ CYB/ 2020-2022 as illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of TS Revise Pension Rules and also in violation of the Judgments of the Apex Court of India and also in violation of Article 21 of Indian Constitution and pass such other order or orders may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Consequently, to set- aside the Memo dt. 17-03-2022 vide No. E1/ 1101/ Pension/CYB/2020-2022 issued by the Respondent No. 2 in the interests of justice”. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that petitioner’s late husband Mohd. Abdul Khader worked as Sub-Inspector of Police and retired from service on 31.03.2010 on superannuation and was receiving pension and later, died on 28.08.2020. During the lifetime of the petitioner’s late husband, the petitioner’s late husband had nominated his first wife i.e., Shabbeer Banu as his nominee in concerned records and thereafter, the said Shabbeer Banu died on 16.12.2017. It is further the case of the petitioner that petitioner’s late husband i.e.,Mohd. abdul Khader got legally married to the petitioner herein, on 24.01.1996 as per Shariah and Mohammedan Law and had been blessed with a son by name Mohammed Abdul Muqtair on 29.11.1996. The petitioner submitted an application dated 24.08.2021 for family pension with effect from 29.08.2020 before the 2 nd respondent but the 2 nd respondent erroneously rejected the said application of the petitioner through Memo dated 17.03.2022 vide proceedings No. E1/1101/Pension/CYB/ 2020-2022 without following the statutory laws and solely relying on the proviso of Rule 50 Sub-Rule (6) of the Telangana State Revised Pension Rules, which is contrary to Rule 25 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD. 4. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner approached the Court by filing the present writ petition. PERUSED THE RECORD. 4. The Proceedings of Memo vide No. E1/ 1101/ Pension/ Cyb/ 2020-22, Dated 17.03.2022 issued by the Office of the commissioner of Police, Cyberabad is extracted hereunder “With reference to the above cited, Smt Ahmedi Anjum, 2 nd wife of Sri late Md. Abdul Khader, SI has submitted pension papers along with Death Certificate and requested for sanction of family pension and pensionery benefits vide reference 1 st cited. Further, while verifying the Service Book of the deceased employee, it is found to the notice of that, Sri Abdul Khader, SI (Retd) had performed second marriage while in service without any prior permission from the competent authorities, even first wife was alive, which obeys the Rule 50 Sub-rule (6) of TS Revised Pension Rules, Family pension is not admissible to the second wife as marrying another wife, (when one wife is living) without obtaining the approval of Government, is contrary to Rule 25 of A.P. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In view of the above circumstances, the pension papers along with relevant documents in respect of Smt Ahmedi Anjum, 2 nd wife of Sri late Md. Abdul Khader, are returned due to ineligibility of family pension benefits”. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.2. The relevant page Nos.3, 4 and para No.9 of the said counter affidavit are extracted hereunder “ In reply to Para 4 & 5 : It is respectfully submitted that, all the averments in this Para more particularly the diseased Late Mohd. Abdul Khader S/o. Gulam Mohammed (Late) was legally married the petitioner on 24/01/1996. It is pertinent to mention that in the application dt: 24.08.2021 submitted by the petitioner mentioned that after the death of the first wife the petitioner married Mohd Abdul Khader and the first wife said to be expired on 16/12/2017. Therefore the marriage between the petitioner and Mohd. Abdul Khader is false one. Hence present writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limini. In reply to Para 6 : It is respectfully submitted that, we have received two applications one from the petitioner (on 24/08/2021) and also one from Smt. Shaheen Begum, on the 24/08/2021, stating that, they are the wives of Mohd. Abdul Khader is false one. Hence present writ petition deserves to be dismissed in limini. In reply to Para 6 : It is respectfully submitted that, we have received two applications one from the petitioner (on 24/08/2021) and also one from Smt. Shaheen Begum, on the 24/08/2021, stating that, they are the wives of Mohd. Abdul Khader and informed that he was expired on 28/08/2020 and there by requested to sanction family pension on their name. Further, on receiving the said applications, we have verified the Service Records of Mohd. Abdul Khader, and found that such person names were not mentioned in the Family Members List and also descriptive rolls in the Pension Proposals submitted by the Mohd. Abdul Khader. However as they have informed as Mohd.Abdul Khader was expired on 28/08/2020, as such, the same is noted. Both the petitioner i.e. herein and one Smt. Shaheen Begum, in their application they have mentioned that, the first wife of Mohd. Abdul Khader, Smt Shabbir Hano was expired on 16/12/2017. But there after her death only these two women married Mr. Abdul Khader. The rule 25 of The Telangana Civil Services (Conduct) Rules 1964, it is very crystal clear that, Rule 25. Bigamous marriages; which reads an under:- (1) No Government employee who has a wife living shall contract another marriage without first obtaining the permission of the Government, notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him: [Provided that where the personal law provides for second or subsequent marriage, the Government employee shall while seeking permission to contract another marriage, produce documentary evidence in support of "Divorce or Talaq" in respect of previous marriage and the manner in which the same was secured or pronounced and intimated to the first or former wife.] [(2) No female Government Servant whether un-married or widowed or divorced, as the case may be, shall marry any person who has a wife living without first obtaining the permission of the Government, through the parties are governed by the personal law which otherwise permits contracting more than one marriage while the prior marriage is subsisting. 9. Therefore in view of the above rule position it is clear that Deceased employee was not informed nor introduced the petitioner as his family member or even not introduced as his wife. 9. Therefore in view of the above rule position it is clear that Deceased employee was not informed nor introduced the petitioner as his family member or even not introduced as his wife. Therefore the petitioner has not qualified to claim any benefits as a family member of Late Sri Mohd. Abdul Khader. Keeping in view of the above, the applications submitted by the petitioner and one Shaheen Begum are rejected. In reply to Para 7,8,9 & 10 : Are being the references of various judgments of honourable courts, are not applicable to the present case, as such in the present case there is no intimation or permission by the deceased employee regarding to his second marriage through the same in permitted under his personal law. The petition claiming family pension without submitting proper documents”. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION:- 6. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner herein is the 2 nd wife of Mohd. Abdul Khader, S.I. of Police (retired), who had been legally married to the petitioner on 24.01.1996 as per Shariah and Mohammedan Law and had been blessed with a son by name Mohammed Abdul Muqtadir on 29.11.1996 and as the petitioner being the legally wedded 2 nd wife of the deceased employee, the petitioner is eligible for family pension of late Mohd. Abdul Khader with effect from 29.08.2020 in view of the fact that the petitioner’s deceased husband Mohd. Abdul Khader had nominated his first wife by name Shabbeer Banu as his nominee and thereafter, his first wife Shabbeer Banu died on 16.12.2017 and the children of late Shabbeer Banu are not claiming any pension and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for family pension. 7. The petitioner made an application on 24.08.2021 for family pension along with necessary certificates for sanction of family pension in her favour with effect from 29.08.2020 before the 2 nd respondent, however, the 2 nd respondent had erroneously rejected the petitioner’s application through Memo dated 17.03.2022 relying on the proviso of Rule 50 Sub-Rule (6) of T.S. Revised Pension Rules. 8. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that since it is very clearly indicated in the information furnished by the deceased employee‘s son by name M.A. Muqtadir that in his Secondary School Certificate, his date of birth is 29.11.1996, and petitioner’s name is indicated as his mother and the name of petitioner’s late deceased husband Sri Mohd. Abdul Khader as his father, the petitioner had ample evidence indicating that the petitioner is the mother of said Mohammed Abdul Muqtadir who is shown as a family member of the deceased employee at Serial No.6 as per official records during the life time of petitioner’s deceased husband, hence, the petitioner’s claim cannot be rejected since petitioner is governed by Personal Law and the petitioner has sufficient evidence on record showing that the petitioner is the legally wedded 2 nd wife of the deceased employee. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner also contends that petitioner was not provided with a reasonable opportunity to put-forth petitioner’s case before the 2 nd respondent herein prior to passing of the impugned orders, dated 17.03.2022 by the 2 nd respondent herein rejecting petitioner’s pension application, dated 24.08.2021. 9. The learned Government Pleader for Services (Home), appearing on behalf of respondents submits that the deceased employee failed to obtain prior permission of the Government for his second marriage which is mandatory as per Rule 25 of the Telangana civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and further, the deceased employee Sri Mohammed Abdul Quader had not indicated the petitioner’s name as 2 nd wife in the particulars furnished by him to the Department though he clearly indicated the name of the son as M.A. Muqtadir at Serial No.6 and the deceased employee son’s date of birth as 29.11.1996. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled for the relief as prayed for in the present writ petition and the present writ petition needs to be dismissed. 10. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 in State of Jharkhand and Others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another”, para Nos.16 and 17 observed as under: “ 16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in “property”. 10. The Apex Court in the judgment reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 in State of Jharkhand and Others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another”, para Nos.16 and 17 observed as under: “ 16. The fact remains that there is an imprimatur to the legal principle that the right to receive pension is recognized as a right in “property”. Article 300 A of the Constitution of India reads as under: “300-A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by authority of law” . - No person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law.” Once we proceed on that premise, the answer to the question posed by us in the beginning of this judgment becomes too obvious. A person cannot be deprived of this pension without the authority of law, which is the Constitutional mandate enshrined in Article 300 A of the Constitution. It follows that attempt of the appellant to take away a part of pension or gratuity or even leave encashment without any statutory provision and under the umbrage of administrative instruction cannot be countenanced. 17 . It hardly needs to be emphasized that the executive instructions are not having statutory character and, therefore, cannot be termed as “law” within the meaning of aforesaid Article 300A. On the basis of such a circular, which is not having force of law, the appellant cannot withhold even a part of pension or gratuity. As we noticed above, so far as statutory rules are concerned, there is no provision for withholding pension or gratuity in the given situation. Had there been any such provision in these rules, the position would have been different”. 11. In the case of “ Kamalbai W/ o. Venkatrao Nipanikar Versus State of Maharashtra and Others dealt by High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad) Full Bench)” reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Bom.2219 : (2019) 3 Mh. LJ 921 (FB) : (2019) 3 AIR Bom. R. 642 : 2019 Lab IC 2566 (FB) : (2019) 3 KLT (SN 39) 28, passed in W.P. Nos. 9933, 11256 and 12308 of 2016, dated 31.01.2019 at para No.47, it is observed as under “ 47. LJ 921 (FB) : (2019) 3 AIR Bom. R. 642 : 2019 Lab IC 2566 (FB) : (2019) 3 KLT (SN 39) 28, passed in W.P. Nos. 9933, 11256 and 12308 of 2016, dated 31.01.2019 at para No.47, it is observed as under “ 47. Considering relevant Pension Rules particularly Rules, 111, 112, 114, Clause (I) under Rule 111 (5) amended on 18.01.2016 by which the word 'wife' was replaced by the word "legally wedded wife" and Rule 116 (6) (a) (i) referred in earlier part of the judgment and decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar (supra) , wherein it was considered that the woman in void marriage is not a widow, I concur with the view expressed by my learned brother Justice S. V. Gangapurwala that the second wife in general parlance would not be entitled for family pension unless she is legally wedded wife. A second wife who is not legally wedded wife would not be entitled for family pension under Rule 116 of the Pension Rules. However, a second wife if is legally wedded wife would be entitled for family pension, Rule 116 (6) (a) (i) of the Pension Rules cannot be read de hors the concept of legally wedded wife and that the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Chanda Hinglas Bharti Vs. State of Maharashtra (supra) , Ramabai Gulabrao Jamnik (supra) and the view of the learned single Judge in the case of Indubai Jaydeo Pawar and another (supra) appears to be correct view”. 12. In the case of “Union of India and Another Versus Ganeshibai Alias Sunderibai W/ o. Late Ghasiram of the High Court of Bombay” reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 615 : (2020) 5 Mah LJ 41: (2020) 3 AI R Bom. R 123: (2020) 3 Bom. CR 175, passed in W.P. Nos. 6973 of 2016, dated 15.04.2020 at para No.12, it is observed as under “ 12. In view of these conflicting decisions, the matter was referred to Full Bench of this Court in case of Kamlabai vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) (3) Mah. L.J. (FB) 921. The prime question for consideration was whether second wife is entitled for pensionary benefits. 6973 of 2016, dated 15.04.2020 at para No.12, it is observed as under “ 12. In view of these conflicting decisions, the matter was referred to Full Bench of this Court in case of Kamlabai vs. State of Maharashtra (2019) (3) Mah. L.J. (FB) 921. The prime question for consideration was whether second wife is entitled for pensionary benefits. In that context, the Full Bench has answered the issue that the family pension cannot be claimed by second wife if she is not a legally wedded wife, and if the second wife is legally wedded wife, then she would be entitled for family pension . In fact all these Judgment wp6973.16 decisions relate to parties who are governed by the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act. Apparently, any marriage solemnized in contravention to the conditions specified in Clauses [i], [iv] and [v] of Section 5 would be void marriage within the meaning of Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In that context, it is expressed that a second wife is not a legally wedded wife and therefore, she cannot be called as a widow and therefore, she is not entitled to family pension. However, the Full Bench has clarified that if the second wife is legally wedded wife, then she is entitled for family pension . As elaborated above, the parties are from Gond community where second marriage is permissible in custom. The said marriage is not void, and therefore, the second marriage being legal, the second wife Ganeshibai can be termed as widow of Ghasiram, deceased railway employee, and in view of Rule 75 of the 1993 Rules, she is entitled to family pension”. In the above case of Union of India and Another cited ( supra ) the Division Bench had clarly clarified that if the second wife is legally wedded wife, then she is entitled for family pension. 13. In the case of “ Sirazun Nessa Versus State of Assam and Others of the High Court of Gauhati” reported in (2012) 5 Gauhati Law Reports 15 passed in Writ Appeal No. 168 of 2010 dated 09.02.2011 at para Nos.16 to 19, it is observed as under “ 16. At this stage, we would like to address the effect of “Conduct Rules?, while determining the claim of the family pension. At this stage, we would like to address the effect of “Conduct Rules?, while determining the claim of the family pension. As noted earlier, the learned Single Judge has referred to Rule 26 of the „Conduct Rules?; which has put certain pre-conditions for contracting a second marriage. Admittedly the “Conduct Rules? do not totally prohibit marriage, provided it is permitted under the personal law and custom of the concerned Government employee. The only rider is to obtain permission from the Government. In our considered opinion, any violation of the Conduct Rules may entail disciplinary proceeding during the service tenure of a Government employee but any such violation does not amount to declaring 2nd marriage between the two Muslim spouses void, provided it is otherwise legal and valid. Hence, the rejection of the claim of a second Mohemadan wife with the aid of “Conduct Rules? is unsustainable in law. 17 . In the case of Deokinandan Prasad ( supra ), their Lordships have held that „Pension is a property of a Govt. servant and withholding of the same for no valid reason offends Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India. In our view also a "property" is an actionable claim and the rights and liabilities over such properties have to be determined in accordance with the personal laws of the parties. In other words, we are of the opinion that the view taken in the case of Amina Khatun ( supra ) appears to be more rational than the judgment rendered in the case of Suraiya Sultana ( supra ) 18 . For the foregoing reasons, we are in agreement with the view taken in the case of Amina Khatun ( supra ) in preference to the decision taken in Suraiya Sultana ( supra ) as well as the impugned judgment. As a corollary, the impugned judgment is hereby set aside. It is held that the appellant / writ petitioner is entitled to the proportionate Family Pension, which would be determined by the office of the Accountant General, Assam, and for this purpose the said authority may ask both the surviving widows of the deceased to clarify the ratio of their claim in accordance with the Mohemadan law. In the event of any dispute about the ratio, the parties may be asked to bring appropriate decree from a competent civil court. 19. In the event of any dispute about the ratio, the parties may be asked to bring appropriate decree from a competent civil court. 19. In the result, the appeal stands allowed, subject to the observations made in the preceding paragraphs”. 14. A bare perusal of the view taken by the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court at Para No.16 (referred to and extracted above) clearly indicates that in the event employee fails to obtain prior permission as mandated under the Rules of intimating the Government, disciplinary proceedings may be initiated against the said employee. But the said lapse on the part of the deceased employee cannot amount to declaring 2 nd marriage between the two Muslim spouses void, provided it is otherwise legal and valid. A bare perusal of the para No.18 of the said judgment clearly indicates that in the said case, the Court felt that the writ petitioners therein are entitled for proportionate Family Pension, which would be determined by the office of the Accountant General, Assam and for this purpose the said authority may ask both the surviving widows of the deceased to clarify the ratio of their claim in accordance with the Mohemadan law and further in the event of any dispute about the ratio, the parties may be asked to bring appropriate decree from a competent Civil Court. 15. This Court opines that the reasons assigned in the impugned order of the 2 nd respondent, dated 17.03.2022 rejecting the request of the petitioner for grant of family pension made vide petitioner’s pension application, dated 24.08.2021 are not tenable in view of the fact that the deceased employee died on 28.08.2020 and the 1 st wife of the deceased employee expired on 16.12.2017 itself even before the death of the petitioner’s deceased husband late Mohd. Abdul Khader and since admittedly as borne on record parties are governed by Mohemadan law . This Court also takes note of the fact as borne on record and even admitted by the learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) that the deceased employee had indicated second wife’s son as family member in the particulars furnished by him during his life time. This Court also takes note of the fact as borne on record and even admitted by the learned Government Pleader for Services (Home) that the deceased employee had indicated second wife’s son as family member in the particulars furnished by him during his life time. As borne on record, in the Secondary School Certificate of petitioner’s son, his date of birth is mentioned as 29.11.1996 and the said certificate issued in the year 2012 indicates petitioner’s name as mother and petitioner’s late husband’s name i.e., Mohd.Abdul Khader as father. This Court opines that the representation of the petitioner dated 24.08.2021 seeking family pension with effect from 29.08.2020 had been rejected mechanically by the 2 nd respondent without application of mind, without providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and all concerned in clear violation of principles of natural justice and hence, the subject issue needs to be reconsidered in the light of the observations of the Courts in the Judgments (referred to and extracted above) in accordance to law , in conformity with principles of natural justice. 16. Taking into consideration:- a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. b) The submissions made by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for Services(Home), appearing on behalf of the respondents. c) The contents of SSC certificate issued to petitioner’s son in the year 2012 d) The judgments of the Apex Court and other Courts enlisted below (referred to and extracted above) :- i) In State of Jharkhand and Others Vs. Jitendra Kumar Srivastava and Another” reported in (2013) 12 SCC 210 ii) In Kamalbai W/ o. Venkatrao Nipanikar Versus State of Maharashtra and Others dealt by High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad) Full Bench)” reported in 2019 SCC OnLine Bom.2219 iii) In Union of India and Another Versus Ganeshibai Alias Sunderibai W/ o. Late Ghasiram of the High Court of Bombay reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 615 iv) In Sirazun Nessa Versus State of Assam and Others of the High Court of Gauhati” reported in (2012) 5 Gauhati Law Reports 15. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned proceedings vide Memo No.E1/ 1101/ Pension/ CYB/ 2020-2022, dated 17.03.2022 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the 2 nd respondent herein to reconsider the application of the petitioner dated 24.08.2021, duly taking into consideration the observations in the judgments referred to and extracted above in accordance to law , in conformity with principles of natural justice by providing an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner and all concerned and pass appropriate orders pertaining to the request of the petitioner for sanction of family pension made vide petitioner’s application, dated 24.08.2021 duly reconsidering petitioner’s specific plea that the petitioner is legally wedded second wife of the deceased employee Sri Mohd. Abdul Khader, within a period of six (6) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and duly communicate the decision on petitioner’s application dated 24.08.2021 to the petitioner. How ever, there shall be no order as to costs. The miscellaneous applications, pending if any, shall stand closed.