TN Service Rules Bar Bigamy, Second Wife Cannot Be Included In Pension Payment Order Even After Death Of First Spouse: Madras High Court
Safiya Malik
The Madras High Court Division Bench of Justice S.M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan has held that a second wife is not entitled to be included as a nominee in a Pension Payment Order to receive family pension, even after the death of the first wife, where the second marriage was contracted during the lifetime of the first spouse. The court noted that bigamous marriage constitutes grave misconduct under the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, which prohibit government employees from contracting a second marriage while the first spouse remains alive. The court found the second marriage void and concluded that the subsequent death of the first wife could not validate an otherwise invalid marriage for the purposes of pension entitlement.
The appellant, the Accountant General of Tamil Nadu, challenged a writ order that had set aside the rejection of a retired Block Development Officer’s request to include his second wife as nominee in the Pension Payment Order for receipt of family pension. The retired officer had contracted a second marriage on 27.05.1992 during the lifetime of his first wife. On 21.04.2009, he applied to include the names of both wives as nominees for family pension. The application was forwarded through the Block Development Officer and the District Collector but was rejected by the Accountant General on 29.07.2009.
The retired officer contended that following the death of his first wife on 10.08.2020, there was no impediment to include the second wife as nominee. The appellant maintained that the second marriage, having been contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage, was void and in violation of the Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1973. The dispute involved interpretation of Rule 49 and related provisions of the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978, concerning eligibility for family pension.
The Bench recorded that “The writ Court has not considered the relevant Rules under the Tamilnadu Pension Rules 1978, which is to be followed for grant of pension and family pension.” It further stated that “The eligibility for pension and family pension is of paramount importance, since the pension is a welfare scheme and being granted in accordance with the provisions of TamilNadu Pension Rules, 1978.”
On facts, the Court observed, “The facts regarding the second marriage during the life time of the first wife is not disputed. Thus, the second marriage is null and void.” It also noted that “Even during the life time of both the wives, the 1st respondent submitted an application for inclusion of the names of both the wives in the Pension Payment Order which was rejected by the Accountant General of TamilNadu.”
Referring to the Conduct Rules, the Court stated, “Tamil Nadu Government Servants Conduct Rules prohibits contracting of second marriage by the government employee during the lifetime of the first spouse.” It added, “Contracting second marriage during the lifetime of the first spouse is a misconduct warranting departmental proceedings, which is considered as grave misconduct, under the Conduct Rules.”
The Bench relied on the Supreme Court decision and reproduced: “Normally, pension is given to the legally wedded wife of a deceased employee. By no stretch of imagination one can say that the plaintiff, Smt. Krishna was the legally wedded wife of late Shri Atam Parkash, especially when he had a wife, who was alive when he married to another woman…”
In conclusion of its reasoning, the Court observed, “Death of the first wife would not provide a ground to claim family pension by the second wife, since the second marriage is void.”
Also Read: Places Of Worship Act Cannot Shield Encroachments By Temple On Government Land: Madras High Court
The Court held, “For all these reasons, this Court could able to arrive at an irresistible conclusion that the writ order impugned is not in consonance with the Pension Rules applicable for inclusion of the name of the second wife as nominee and grant of Family Pension. The impugned writ order dated 02.11.2021 in W.P.No.2183 of 2021 is set aside and the Writ Appeal stands allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Ms. V. Kanchana for Mr. V. Vijayashankar
For the Respondents: Mr. K. Sanjay; Dr. S. Suriya, AGP
Case Title: The Accountant General v. M. Radhakrishnan and Another
Neutral Citation: 2026: MHC:388
Case Number: WA No. 1072 of 2022
Bench: Justice S. M. Subramaniam and Justice C. Kumarappan
