Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1018 (PAT)

Sandeep Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2001-11-07

AFTAB ALAM

body2001
Judgment 1. There is a single petitioner before this court who seeks a direction for appointment on compassionate grounds following the death of his father while he was in service. The father of the petitioner, namely Ram Anugrah Thakur died on 5.6.2000. At the time of his death he was working as the Head Master in a Middle School. Ram Anugrah Thakur was married to one Mandvi Devi who gave birth to three daughters, one of whom is married. The deceased Ram Anugrah Thakur then married Neelam Devi, the mother of the petitioner who gave birth to two sons, the petitioner being the elder one. Following the death of Ram Anugrah Thakur the petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground and according to his case the request for his appointment was made with the concurrence and approval of Mandvi Devi (the first wife of the deceased) and his two unmarried daughters as well. As he did not get any favourable response from the concerned authorities he came to this court seeking appropriate direction for his appointment. 2. In the counter affidavit filed in this case the respondent authorities have, for all intent and purpose rejected his claim for appointment. According to the respondent authorities, the present petitioner is the son of the second wife of the deceased employee and, therefore, he is not covered by the scheme of compassionate appointments and is not entitled to appointment. It is further pointed out in the counter affidavit that rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976 prohibits a government employee from entering into second marriage during the life time of the first wife and the so called marriage of the deceased employee with Neelam Devi was, therefore, in violation of the prohibitory rules apart from being void under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act. 3. It is to be noted that under the scheme of compassionate appointment the son of the deceased government employee is entitled to appointment on a Class IV or Class III post. The son is not defined in the scheme and therefore one will have to take its natural meaning. The Division Bench of this court has held that even an adopted son of a Hindu father is covered by the scheme of compassionate appointment. The son is not defined in the scheme and therefore one will have to take its natural meaning. The Division Bench of this court has held that even an adopted son of a Hindu father is covered by the scheme of compassionate appointment. That being the oosition I am unable to see why should the biological off spring be excluded from the category of son under the scheme. 4. I am unable to appreciate and accept the stand of respondent authorities based on rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976. The provisions of rule 23 might have been invoked to initiate a disciplinary proceeding against the deceased Ram Anugrah Thakur during his life time for offending the service rules and he might have been removed from service on that ground. But on the basis of rule 23 of the Conduct Rules it would not be open to question the legitimacy of the petitioners birth. 5. It is further to be noted that under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, though the so called marriage of Ram Anugrah Thakur with Neelam Devi may be void but the off-springs of that marriage would still be legitimate and by virtue of sections 8 to 10 and the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would be entitled to share in the estate of the deceased (Rameshwari Devi V/s. State of Bihar & Ors, 2000(2) P. L. J. R. 15(SC). I am therefore, of the view that the respondent authorities acted wrongly in rejecting the petitioners claim on the sole ground that he was the son from the second wife of the deceased employee Ram Anugrah Thakur. The respondent authorities are accordingly directed to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in the light of this order. 6. It is made clear that this court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioners claim otherwise and it will be open to the respondent authorities to examine his claim subject to the other conditions of the scheme. All that this court directs is that the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected only on the ground that he is the son of Neelam Devi being the second wife of the deceased employee. 7. All that this court directs is that the claim of the petitioner cannot be rejected only on the ground that he is the son of Neelam Devi being the second wife of the deceased employee. 7. It is expected that a final decision on the petitioners claim will be taken within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order in the office of the District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. 8. In the result, this writ petition is allowed but with no order as to costs.