HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.1524 OF 2010 Dt.1.2.2010 Between: Mrs.Monawar Banu .. Petitioner And The Commissioner of Police, Hyderabad and others ..Respondents HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR W.P.NO.1524 OF 2010 ORDER: (Per Sri Justice Vilas V. Afzulpurkar) Petitioner herein is the 4th respondent in O.A.No.8211 of 2007 on the file of the Andhra Pradesh Administrative Tribunal. The dispute in this matter, both before the Tribunal and before this Court, is that of the two widows of the deceased employee Syed Mohamood, Head Constable 3359 of Kulsumpura Police Station, Hyderabad. He died while in service on 23.8.2004. The 4th respondent herein, who is applicant in the said O.A., requested the Commissioner of Police to grant her equal share in the family pension along with the petitioner herein on the ground that she is the second wife of the deceased employee. The said request was rejected by the Commissioner of Hyderbad, vide memo No.H2/12888/FP/2004, dated 29.12.2004, on the ground that the second wife is not entitled for family pension in the light of the circular memo No.36840-A/329/A2/Pension-1/93, dated 11.9.1996, and no permission was obtained by the employee while contracting the second marriage; thereby Rule 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (for short referred to as ‘Conduct Rules’) was violated. Questioning the said order and seeking declaration that the second marriage contracted by the deceased employee with the 4th respondent herein is valid, she approached the Family Court, Hyderabad, in O.P.No.260 of 2005. The petitioner herein was the 2nd respondent in the said O.P. and the Commissioner of Police employer was the 1st respondent. The said O.P was allowed on 2.1.2006 by the Family Court, holding that the 4th respondent herein is the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. However, the Family Court did not grant the relief sought by her that she is entitled to all service benefits accruing so far as the deceased employee is concerned. Aggrieved by the non-granting of that part of the relief by the Family Court, she preferred F.C.A.No.31 of 2006 before this Court and the petitioner herein also questioned the findings of the Family Court on the legality of the second marriage by filing cross-objections (SR) No.10726 of 2006. The said F.C.A and the cross-objections were heard together and decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment, dated 23.10.2007. This Court, in the aforesaid judgment, agreed with the finding of the Family Court that the 4th respondent herein was the legally wedded second wife of the deceased employee. However to the extend of grant of service benefits to the said second wife, this Court held that the matter falls within the purview of the Tribunal and it is open for the 4th respondent to approach the Tribunal for the aforesaid relief. Thereafter, the 4th respondent herein filed O.A.No.8211 of 2007 before the Tribunal and the Tribunal by an earlier order dated 2.12.2008 allowed the O.A., however, without taking into consideration the effect of Rule 25 of Conduct Rules. The said order of the Tribunal was therefore questioned by the petitioner herein in W.P.No.7536 of 2009 and by order dated 17.8.2009 we had set aside the aforesaid order of the Tribunal and remitted the O.A for fresh consideration by the Tribunal so as to consider the entitlement of the 4th respondent herein in the light of Rule 25 of the Conduct Rules as well as Rule 50(6)(a)(i) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 (for short referred to as ‘Revised Pension Rules’). The Tribunal under the present impugned order has considered both the said Rules and gave a finding that the marriage of the 4th respondent herein having been declared by the Family Court and confirmed by this Court as valid and neither Rule 25 of the Conduct Rules nor Rule 50(6) of the Revised Pension Rules can have effect so as to invalidate the said marriage. The Tribunal observed that the so-called contravention of Rule 25 of the Conduct Rules, at best, would lead to the disciplinary case against the employee who contravenes the said Rules. The Tribunal therefore allowed the said O.A. and declared that the 4th respondent herein is entitled to family pension in equal shares along with the petitioner herein and entitled for arrears with interest at 8% per annum. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner herein, who is first wife of the deceased employee, has filed the present writ petition. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, who has strenuously contended that in view of the impugned order Rule 25 of the Conduct Rules will be redundant and some meaningful interpretation with regard to the said Rule 25 must be given. He also contended that the first marriage of the petitioner with the deceased was performed on 15.5.1972 and the alleged second marriage of the 4th respondent was on 11.9.1994 and thereafter the deceased employee / husband of the petitioner died on 23.8.2004. But at no point of time the second marriage was disclosed or known to the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the second marriage only when the 4th respondent herein filed a representation before the Commissioner of Police seeking terminal benefits with respect to the deceased in her capacity as the second wife of the deceased. We have considered the aforesaid submissions and for the purpose of convenience it would be appropriate to extract Rule 25 of the Andhra Pradesh Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 as under: “Bigamous marriages: (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 contact 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 unmarried 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, though the parties are governed by the personal law which otherwise permits contracting more than one marriage while the prior marriage is subsisting.]” Similarly, Rule 50(6) of the Andhra Pradesh Revised Pension Rules, 1980 reads as under: “(6)(a)(i) Where the family pension is payable in more widows than one, the family pension shall be paid to the widows in equal shares. [(ii) On the death of a widow, or remarriage 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 the family pension shall cease to be payable. (b) Where the deceased Government servant 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.” On the facts and circumstances of the case, it is not open for the petitioner now to seek any adjudication with regard to the validity of the said second marriage of the 4th respondent herein with the deceased, on account of the finding of the Division Bench of this Court in F.C.A No.31 of 2006. As mentioned above, the petitioner herein is the 2nd respondent in the said Family Court Appeal and the categorical finding of the Division Bench which is extracted below settles the validity of the 4th respondent’s marriage with the deceased once for all. “In view of the same, the finding of the Family Court that the appellant is legally wedded wife of late Syed Mohammed do not suffer from any perversity or illegality in appreciation of evidence. Therefore, the said declaration granted by Family Court needs no interference by this Court and the same is confirmed.” We are therefore of the opinion that the said second marriage was valid and even binding on the petitioner, who is a party to the said appeal. Rule 25 of the Conduct Rules on which the petitioner placed reliance merely puts an obligation on the Government employee to obtain prior permission from the Government whenever the subsequent marriage is being contracted by him in accordance with the personal law. The Tribunal has rightly considered the said rule and has rightly held that in the event of any violation of the said conduct rules the Government employee will be liable for disciplinary action for such violation. In the present case, the employee who violated Rule 25 of the Conduct Rules is no more and therefore disciplinary action cannot be initiated against him. Admittedly, there is no evidence on record to show that permission was obtained for contracting the second marriage as contemplated under Rule 25. If a Government servant contracts second marriage without permission and provided that such marriage is permissible under personal law, the marriage as such does not become illegal or void on the ground of lack of prior permission. The marriage, which is valid and legally binding, cannot be invalidated. The requirement of obtaining prior permission of the Government has therefore no nexus with respect to the declaration of validity of the marriage. The validity of second marriage of the deceased with the 4th respondent therefore does not depend upon the grant of prior permission or otherwise by the Government. The Tribunal therefore has correctly approached the issue and answered the same in favour of the 4th respondent. We see no reason to take a different view so far as interpretation of Rule 25 of Conduct Rules is concerned. Similarly, so far as Rule 50(6) of the Revised Pension Rules is concerned, it specifically says that in the event of their being more widows than one, family pension shall be payable to the widows in equal shares. Since the petitioner and the 4th respondent are the widows of the deceased, they will be entitled to family pension in equal shares. The said declaration granted by the Tribunal is also in accordance with Rule 50(6) of the Revised Pension Rules and we see no reason to take a different view. The impugned order therefore does not suffer from any error whatsoever and the writ petition is therefore liable to be dismissed. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J. ________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J. 1.2.2010 kpr