ORDER : V. Bhavani Subbaroyan, J. This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the impugned order passed by the 5 th respondent in Na.Ka.No.1407/A3/2023, dated 29.11.2023 and for a direction to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner's wife Mrs.Shiyamala in the Family Pension Scheme of the petitioner. 2. The case of the petitioner is that, he was working as a Teacher in the Government School. The petitioner had retired from service on 31.08.1998 and is granted the benefit of Family Pension since then. The petitioner has 5 daughters and 1 son. Out of the 6 children, 4 daughters were born to his first wife, Late Mrs.Govindammal and one daughter and a son were born to his second wife viz., Mrs.Shiyamala. During the lifetime of Late Mrs.Govindammal, due to her illness in health, the petitioner had to marry Mrs.Shiyamala under pressure and compulsion by Late Mrs.Govindammal, as she was under medication, continuous treatment and bedridden. After suffering sickness, Late Mrs.Govindammal demised on 01.10.1999. Since then, the petitioner is living with Mrs.Shiyamala and all the children are married and settled. Hence, to incorporate the name of Mrs.Shiyamala in the Family Pension Scheme, the petitioner made a representation on 27.09.2023, quoting the previous communications and proceedings of the department in Pen. 16/1/pt5608/14-15 122/9630 dated 15.10.2014, vide impugned order dated 29.11.2023 in Na.Ka.No.1407/A3/2023, the 5 th respondent refused to grant the request of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. 3. The Learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the 3 rd respondent filed a counter affidavit and submitted that, the Madurai Bench had passed an order in W.P (MD) No.16082 of 2014 dated 23.07.2019, dismissing the writ petition stating that, if it is found a Government servant entered bigamy, then necessary departmental action would be taken against the Government servant for such irregular action and criminal case would be registered against him/her as per Indian Penal Code . Necessary guidelines were issued by the Government vide their Letter No.29620/A-1/2019-3 dated 13.04.2022 Human Management, Department and G.O.Ms.No.906 Finance (Pension) Department dated 06.12.1995 with effect from 02.06.1992. In a similar case in R.Rajathi Vs The Superintendent Engineer Tengedoo and others in W.P.No.17648 of 2017 on 12.07.217, this Court had passed orders rejecting the claim of the 2 nd wife for family pension. In a similar case in R.Rajathi Vs The Superintendent Engineer Tengedoo and others in W.P.No.17648 of 2017 on 12.07.217, this Court had passed orders rejecting the claim of the 2 nd wife for family pension. The Writ Appeal preferred by the said R.Rajathi in W.A.No.977 of 2017 was also dismissed by this Court on 05.06.2018. 4. The Learned Special Government Pleader further submitted that, in Rule 49(7) of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules 1978, the following were stated for grant of family pension. “Rul e 49(7) (a) (i) Where family pension is payable to more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to widows in equal shares. (ii) On the death of widow, her share of the family pension shall become payable to her eligible child. [Provided that if the widow is not survived by any child, her share of family pension shall be payable to the other widows in equal shares, or if there is only one such widow, in full to her.] (b) Where the deceased Government or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from another wife who is not alive, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received if she had been alive at the time of the death of the Government servant or pensioner. [Provided that on the share or shares of family pension payable to child or children or to a widow or widows ceasing to be payable, such share or shares shall be payable to the other widow or widows and or to the other child or children otherwise eligible, in equal shares, or if there is only one widow, or child, in full, to such widow or child.] (c) Where the deceased Government servant or pensioner is survived by a widow but has left behind eligible child or children from a divorced wife or wives, the eligible child or children shall be entitled to the share of family pension which the mother would have received at the time of the death of the Government servant or pensioner had she not been so divorced. Explanation - For the purpose of this rule, the second wife shall be eligible for the benefits of family pension only if the second marriage (i) Solemnised as per the customary law prevailed among the community before the date of commencement of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Central Act 25 of 1955) or (ii) Solemnised under the Mohammadan Law in which bigamy is permissible.” On the above stated Rules and Government Orders in force, and the orders of this Court, the petitioner is not eligible for registering the name of his 2 nd wife as nominee for family pension. Hence, the Learned Special Government Pleader sought to dismiss this writ petition. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that, the Hon'ble Division Bench has dealt with the similar issue in W.A.No.535 of 2024 , dated 19.03.2024, which was filed against the order of the learned single judge in W.P.No.27045 of 2022 dated 04.08.2023 for granting family pension to the respondent / 2 nd wife of the workman, and the Hon'ble Division Bench, after taking into consideration the fact that, the second marriage of the workman with the respondent had been duly registered and they were leading their life as husband and wife, dismissed the Writ Appeal by holding as follows: “..... 11. In such perspective of the matter, the appellant Transport Corporation cannot hinge on hypertechnicality to reject the legitimate claim of family pension made by the respondent, which is neither a charity nor a bounty given by the appellant, but, a gratuitous payment made in recognition of the workman's long service. Ergo, we have no incertitude in holding that the stand of the appellant Transport Corporation that the respondent is not entitled to family pension on the ground that her marriage with the workman had taken place even before his first marriage was dissolved, has to fall to ground. 12. Ex consequenti, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Judge and as a sequitur, this writ appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merits.” Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to allow this writ petition, based on the above said order of the Hon'ble Division Bench. 6. 12. Ex consequenti, this Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Judge and as a sequitur, this writ appeal fails and is dismissed as being devoid of merits.” Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to allow this writ petition, based on the above said order of the Hon'ble Division Bench. 6. On going through the orders passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench in W.A.No.535 of 2024 , dated 19.03.2024, it is evident that, if the workman had entered into a second marriage after dissolution of the first marriage, his 2 nd wife is entitled to get family pension only if the marriage between themselves was duly registered and they were in long cohabitation. 7. In the present case, it is revealed from the records that, the second marriage between the petitioner and Mrs.Shiyamala is duly registered on 02.06.1983 with the Sub Registrar Office at Aarani and they are in cohabitation till date. As such, the petitioner is entitled to include the name of his 2 nd wife in the Family Pension Scheme. In view of the same, in the considered opinion of this Court, the order impugned in this writ petition is liable to be quashed. 8. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the 5th respondent is quashed and this writ petition is allowed with a direction to the respondents to include the name of Mrs.Shiyamala, the 2 nd wife of the petitioner, in the Family Pension Scheme of the petitioner, within a period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.