JUDGMENT : N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR, J. 1. Heard Mr. H.R. Ahmed, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Ms. G. Borah, learned standing counsel, Agriculture Department, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 1, 3 & 4; Mr. A. Chaliha, learned standing counsel, Finance Department, appearing on behalf of respondents No. 2, & 6; Mr. C. Baruah, learned standing counsel, Accountant General (A&E), Assam; appearing on behalf of respondent No. 5 and Mr. K.R. Patigiri, learned counsel, appearing on behalf of respondent No. 7. 2. The petitioner, herein, in the present proceeding, has raised a grievance with regard to the communication, dated 23.11.2022, issued by the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, to the extent that the husband of the petitioner having not declared the date of marriage with the petitioner, herein, while submitting his pension papers, it was not possible on the part of the Office to establish and share the family pension at this stage until and unless the provisions of Rule 143(ii) of the Assam Service(Pension) Rules, 1969, was relaxed. 3. As projected in the writ petition, the petitioner, herein, is the 1st wife of Late Abdul Goni. The husband of the petitioner had retired from his service on attaining the age of superannuation w.e.f. 31.12.2009. The husband of the petitioner, at the time of his retirement, was serving as an Agriculture Inspector in the establishment of District Agricultural Officer, Dhubri, Assam. The pension and pensionary benefits of the husband of the petitioner was finalized and the Office of the respondent No. 5 had issued a Pension Payment Order (PPO) in this respect to the husband of the petitioner and he was drawing his pension basing thereon. The husband of the petitioner had passed away on 23.02.2018. It is also to be noted that the husband of the petitioner had also married the respondent No. 7, herein. The husband of the petitioner before his death, had executed a deed of agreement-cum-memorandum of understanding by and between himself and his 2(two) wives i.e. petitioner and the respondent No. 7, herein, on 06.02.2018. In the said deed of agreement, it was stipulated that the family pension be disbursed in the name of the 2nd party (petitioner, herein) along with the 3rd party (respondent No. 7, herein), in equal proportion. 4. In the said deed of agreement, it was stipulated that the family pension be disbursed in the name of the 2nd party (petitioner, herein) along with the 3rd party (respondent No. 7, herein), in equal proportion. 4. It is seen that the petitioner and the respondent No. 7, by enclosing the said deed of agreement-cum-memorandum of understanding on 06.02.2018, had submitted a joint application before the District Agricultural Officer, Dhubri, praying for releasing the family pension which was, in the meanwhile, after the death of the husband of the petitioner, kept in abeyance. 5. The District Agricultural Officer, Dhubri, had, thereafter, vide communication, dated 05.01.2022, forwarded the joint application as submitted in the matter on 22.12.2021, by the petitioner and the respondent No. 7, herein, to the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, for necessary action and for an early settlement of the family pension. It is, in response to the said communication, dated 05.01.2022, that the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, had issued the impugned communication, dated 23.11.2022, with the following stipulations: “In terms of Note 1 below Rule 143 (ii) of Assam Services (Pension) Rules 1969 states, in cases where there are two or more widows. Pension will be payable to the eldest surviving widow. On her death it will be payable to the next surviving widow, if any. The term ‘eldest’ would mean seniority with reference to the date of marriage. In the instant case Late Abdul Goni had not declared the name and seniority of date of marriage performed with Smti Sultana Rejiya while submitting the pension papers, so it would not be possible on the part of this Office to establish and share the family pension at this stage until and unless the aforesaid rule is relaxed/invoked by the Department with the concurrence of Administrative Training, Reforms, Pension & Public Grievances Department/Finance Department.” 6. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has instituted the present proceeding before this Court. 7. The learned counsels appearing for the parties have reiterated the stands as taken by them in their respective pleadings and have also reiterated the facts noticed hereinabove. 8. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. The fact that the petitioner, herein, is the 1st wife of Late Abdul Goni, is not disputed by the respondent No. 7, herein. 8. I have heard the learned counsels appearing for the parties and also perused the materials available on record. 9. The fact that the petitioner, herein, is the 1st wife of Late Abdul Goni, is not disputed by the respondent No. 7, herein. In the affidavit so filed in the matter; the respondent No. 7 has categorically stated that the petitioner is the 1st wife of Late Abdul Goni and that she was the 2nd wife. The deed of agreement-cum-memorandum of understanding, dated 06.02.2018, is also not disputed by the parties to the proceeding. In view of the above position, it is to be seen as to the manner in which the family pension receivable by the next of kin of Late Abdul Goni, is now required to be so disbursed. 10. The provisions of Note 1(ii) of the Rule 143 of the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969, mandates that in cases where there are two or more widows, pension will be payable to the eldest surviving widow. On her death, it will be payable to the next surviving widow, if any. The term ‘eldest’ would mean seniority with reference to the date of marriage. 11. In the present case, it is admitted by the learned counsels appearing for the parties that it is the petitioner, herein, who is the senior-most wife by reckoning the date of her marriage with Late Abdul Goni. Accordingly, it is the petitioner, herein, who, in terms of the provisions of Rule 143 of the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969, would now be entitled to receive the family pension on account of the service so rendered by Late Abdul Goni. 12. In view of the fact that the parties to the present proceeding, had admitted that it is the petitioner, herein, who is the senior-most surviving widow of Late Abdul Goni; the objections so raised by the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, vide communication, dated 23.11.20222, stands rejected. Accordingly, the communication, dated 23.11.20222, stands set aside. 13. Having concluded that it is the petitioner who would now be entitled to be authorized the family pension in respect of the service rendered by the husband of the petitioner i.e. Late Abdul Goni; it is to be seen as to whether the respondent No. 7, herein, would also be entitled to a share thereof. 14. 13. Having concluded that it is the petitioner who would now be entitled to be authorized the family pension in respect of the service rendered by the husband of the petitioner i.e. Late Abdul Goni; it is to be seen as to whether the respondent No. 7, herein, would also be entitled to a share thereof. 14. In this connection, a reference is made to the deed of agreement-cum-memorandum of understanding, dated 06.02.2018, as entered by and between the petitioner and the respondent No. 7, herein, wherein, it has been agreed upon by the parties that the family pension on account of the service rendered by Late Abdul Goni, would be apportioned at the rate of 50% each, between the petitioner and the respondent No. 7, herein. 15. In the above view of the matter; the conclusions reached by this Court that it is the petitioner, as the eldest surviving widow of Late Abdul Goni, who would now be entitled to receive the family pension, would not go to mean that the said pension would be the personal property of the petitioner and the petitioner would only receive the same as a trustee for all such other persons who are entitled to the benefits of the family pension in terms of Rule 143 of the Assam Service (Pension) Rules, 1969. In the context of the present proceeding, the petitioner would be receiving the said money as a trustee for the benefit of herself and the respondent No. 7, herein. 16. In view of the above position, the respondents in the Agriculture Department shall re-submit the family pension proposal in the name of the petitioner before the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam, within a period of 1(one) month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 17. The Accountant General (A&E), Assam, on receipt of such proposal, given the conclusions reached by this Court, hereinabove, that the petitioner, herein, is the person entitled to receive the family pension payable on account of the service rendered by Late Abdul Goni, shall proceed to authorize to the petitioner, the family pension within a further period of 30 days, thereafter. 18. 18. The family pension being received in terms of the authorization made by the Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Assam; the petitioner shall within a period of 1(one) week from the date of deposit of such amount, every month, in her Account, shall transfer 50% thereof, to the account of the respondent No. 7, herein. For facilitating the said purpose; the respondent No. 7 shall furnish to the petitioner, her Bank account details, in writing. 19. As to what be the effect of non-sharing of the family pension by the petitioner with the respondent No. 7 has already been examined by a Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mustt. Junufa Bibi v. Mustt. Padma Begum @ Padma Bibi and Others in W.A. No. 160/2018, judgment and order, dated 22.12.2022. The relevant conclusions drawn by the Full Bench of this Court in the above-noted case, is extracted herein-below: “22. We further hold that the family pension being payable to the eldest of the surviving widow or wife would not mean that the entire family pension so payable would be the personal property of the eldest of the surviving widow or wife and the family pension so payable would be held by the eldest of the surviving widow or wife as a trustee for all such other persons who are entitled to the benefits of the family pension in terms of Rule 143 of the Pension Rules of 1969. 23. We also provide that in the event any such other persons who are entitled to the benefits of the family pension in terms of Rule 143 of the Pension Rules of 1969, including the second or further wives, in a case where the parties are governed by the Mohammedan Law, are not appropriately maintained by the eldest of the surviving widow or wife to whom the pension would be paid, the remedy thereof would be to make a claim for maintenance in the appropriate forum under the law and not a claim for a payment of the family pension by the State authorities directly to such persons. But however, if in a given case the State authorities on their own volition are of the view that under an acceptable circumstance the authorities are agreeable or required to pay the pension separately to any such member of a family of a deceased employee, this judgment may not be construed to be an absolute bar on such separate payment.” 20. In view of the above conclusions drawn by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Mustt. Junufa Bibi (supra); it is provided that in the event, the petitioner fails to share the family pension with the respondent No. 7, herein, it would be open to the respondent No. 7 to take steps as provided in paragraph No. 23 of the said decision. 21. With the above directions and observations, this writ petition accordingly stands disposed of.