heirs of dcceased, is entitled to the full family pension, holds merit, as the Rule does not explicitly prohibit a second wife from receiving famiiy pension if the marriage was valid under personal lau, and the pensioner had notihed the authorities. 6. Respondents' reliance on Rule 25 of the A.p. Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964, which requires prior permission for a second marriage, is misplaced. The second marriage took placc after the death of the first wife and did not violate the Conduct Rules. Additionaily, deceased pensioner retrred at the time of thc second marriage, rendering applicability of this Rule debatable. The validily of the marriage under Muslim Personal Law supersedes the requirement for departmental permission in this context. The judgments relied on by petitioner in the cases menlioned supra aflirm the entitlement of a second wife to family pension if the marriage was valid under personal law. Petitioner admittedly, submitted all requisite documents, including death certificate, marriage certificate and notarized alhdavits from family members who raised ho objection. Respondents, despite receiving these documents, failed to process her claim and issued rejection orders based on technicalities rather than substantive compliance with the
