5. Counsels for the respondents submit that family pension can only be allowed to the first wife of a man professing the Mohammedan faith as per the Assam Service Rules 1969 and the second wife is not entitled to receive a portion of the family pension, unless the first wife is divorced or deceased or if the second marriage was not solemnized with the permission of the employer. They submit that Rule 24 of the Assam Civil Services (Conduct Rules), 1965 requires a Government servant to take prior permission of the Government before conducting a second marriage. They also submit that as per the Rule 143 of the Assam Services Pension rules, 1969, pension is payable only to the eldest surviving widow. They also submit even if the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 are deemed to be the children of Late Eusuf Ali Pathan, pension will have to be given in the order of preference set out in Rule 143(i). The respondents’ counsels also submit that as bigamy is prohibited under the Conduct Rules, the petitioners cannot be allowed to take any advantage or any benefit out of a prohibited act. They also submit that the entitlement of the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 cannot be extended to the Rules relating to the payment of family pension under the Assam Services Pension Rules, 1969. In support of their submissions, the counsels for the respondents have relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Musstt. Zubeda Ahmed Vs Musstt. Fazila Begum , reported in 2015 (4) GLR 571 , Mala Kalita Vs. State of Assam and others , reported in 2015 (4) GLT 79 , the order dated 23.8.2016 passed in WP(C) 4252/2015 and the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Khursheed Ahmad Khan Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others , reported in (2015) 8 SCC 439 .
