1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are widows. They had performed the second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage of their husbands.
3. All the petitioners are claiming the same relief of family pension on the death of their husbands under rule 116(6) (a) (1) of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982.
4. The brief facts of each case are as under:-
(a) In Writ Petition No. 9933 of 2016, the petitioner married her husband since his first wife did not conceive until 1961. She has delivered two female and two male children out of wedlock. The first wife of her husband predeceased her after his retirement. After the death of the first wife, her husband submitted a revised pension proposal and nominated her for family pension. The revised family pension proposal was sent to respondent no. 2, the Accountant General, Nagpur. In the meantime, the pension was revised. On 29.02.2016, her husband died. She submitted the pension proposal through respondents nos. 3 and 4 to respondent no. 2. Respondent no. 2 rejected her claim on 01.07.2016, assigning the reason that she is the second wife of her deceased husband. As per the Hindu Marriage Act, the second marriage is not legal. Therefore, she is not eligible for the family pension.
(b) The case of the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 12308.2016 is that her husband got married in the year 1986 to her co-wife. However, she could not conceive till 1995. Therefore, her deceased husband and his parents convinced her parents to obtain her consent for marriage. Lastly, she got married to her deceased husband with the consent of her co-wife. After the marriage, she was living with her co-wife and husband. She delivered two children. In the meantime, her co-wife Sadhana also conceived and gave birth to a male child. Her husband was getting a voluntary retirement pension. He had informed about his second marriage with petitioner to respondents no. 3 and 4. Her husband died on 17.07.2016, leaving behind two wives and three children. On 29.06.2016, by consent of two wives and their children, deceased Gangaram prepared an agreement to share the family pension equally. However, the first wife resiled from her statement. Therefore, the pension proposal remained pending. She claimed that sub-rule 6(a)(i) of Rule 116 of Maharashtra Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1982, permits equal family pension to more widows than one. However, respondent no. 2, by its illegal order dated 21.12.2015, denied her the family pension, assigning the reason that she was the second wife.
(c) The petitioner in the Writ Petition, No. 11256 of 2016, has a case that her husband Uttam Mule was married to one Sarubai. However, she could not conceive till 1979. Therefore, with her consent, she got married to Uttam Mule. Out of wedlock, she delivered two male children. She lived with her husband till his death as his wife. Sarubai, her co-wife, predeceased her. Therefore, her husband inserted her name in the family pension nomination form. Her husband also submitted a bond to respondent no. 7, contending that his first wife is dead. Her husband had sent an application to respondent no. 3, giving her name as a nominee for family pension. Her husband executed a bond on 14.10.1996, contending that she would be entitled to the pension after the death of his first wife. Her husband died on 15.10.1996. After the death of her husband, she obtained the succession certificate from the Civil Court at Buldhana. On 15.01.1999, she applied for a family pension to respondent no. 7. The proposal was sent to respondent no. 3. Respondent no. 3, by its order dated 26.10.1999, granted the family pension to ........