Judgment 1. Heard both the parties. 2. Both the writ petitions are being disposed of by this order. The father of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/04 was an employee of Bihar State Electricity Board. He died in harness. The Board has a policy of giving Compassionate Appointment, in case its employees die in harness. The deceased was a Mohammdan and accordingly was entitled to marry more than one lady. The deceased got married to the mother of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04 and later on married the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/04, whereas the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04 is a major and accordingly competent to offer himself for a compassionate appointment; the children begotten by the deceased through the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/04 are all minors. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/ 04 is competent to offer herself for an appointment in the Board. The elder brother of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04 is not traceable for sometime. As the deceased died in harness, petitioners in both the writ petitions applied for compassionate appointment on their behalf. The applications of the petitioners for compassionate appointment have been rejected by the Board. It appears that while the application was filed by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No, 8771/04, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/ 04 gave a no objection to the appointment as was applied for by filing an affidavit. While the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/ 04 applied for compassionate appointment, she claimed that the said affidavit was obtained by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04 and his mother by making false representations. The claim of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04 was rejected on the ground that the petitioner has not produced any document to demonstrate that his elder brother is traceless. The said application was also rejected on the ground that he had taken recourse to false affidavit so filed by the second wife of the deceased. It was also indicated in the order of rejection that the District Magistrate, Nalanda has not produced appropriate dependency certificate. It appears that two dependency certificates have been filed one showing that the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04 and his mother were dependents of the deased employee and another showing that petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/04 and her minor children were dependents of the deceased employee. It appears that two dependency certificates have been filed one showing that the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04 and his mother were dependents of the deased employee and another showing that petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/04 and her minor children were dependents of the deceased employee. In the meantime, after the death of the deceased, the mother of the petitioner in C.WJ.C. No. 8771/04, being the first wife of the deceased, was paid a sum of Rs. 99,832.54/- on account of gratuity, a sum of Rs. 5,55,838/- on account of G.P.F., a sum of Rs. 75,000/- on account of G.S.S. and a sum of Rs. 97,547/ on account of leave encashment whereas me petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333 of 2004, being the second wife of the deceased, was paid only a sum of Rs. 99832.54/- on account of gratuity. There is however, no Dispute that both the wives were accorded family pension and accordingly each of them became entitled to draw 50% thereof. The petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/04 filed a Title Suit No. 86 of 2004 before the Civil Court at Patna in the court of 12th Sub-Judge, claiming 50% of the total terminal dues, which was due and payable by the Board to the family of the deceased, of which a very large part had been paid to the first wife. 3. The application of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/04 has been rejected on ground that the deceased employee before marrying the petitioner in the said petition did not take permission of the Board as required under Rule 23 of Bihar Government Service Conduct Rules 1976, which has been adopted by the Board. 4. I personally think that the rejection of both the applications by the Board, which forced both the petitioners to approach this court by filing the aforementioned petitions was really a boon to the family of the deceased. In accordance with the personal law by which the said deceased was governed, it was well within his competence to marry second time and also during the lifetime of his first wife. The second wife of the deceased is, thus, his legally married wife. It is true that for marrying second time a permission is required, but such permission should be deemed to have been applied for and granted, when an employee is legally entitled to marry for the second time. The second wife of the deceased is, thus, his legally married wife. It is true that for marrying second time a permission is required, but such permission should be deemed to have been applied for and granted, when an employee is legally entitled to marry for the second time. The deceased employee and the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/04 lived as husband and wife and held out to the public at large, including to the employer that they are husband and wife. As aforesaid, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/04 has been paid 50% of the amount due on account of gratuity and is being paid 50% of the family pension. These could be paid to the petitioner in said writ petition only for the reason that the petitioner in the said writ petition is the legally married wife of the deceased employee. If an enquiry is made, it would be available from the records of the Board that a nomination in favour of the second wife was made by the deceased employee during his lifetime and only on the strength of such nomination the payment of gratuity followed by family pension had been released in favour of the second wife. In such view of the matter, the permission of the Board to the deceased for getting married for the second time should have been deemed to have been granted and accordingly matter should have been dealt with. 5. When the applicant for compassionate appointment is the widow of the deceased, her claim for compassionate appointment should be dealt with first before dealing with an application made by a son for such purpose. In such view of the matter, instead of rejecting the application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/04 the same should have been allowed, provided, however, she could correctly explain her conduct relating to the affidavit filed alongwith the application made by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04. l do not think that the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/04 could at all explain the said affidavit in the manner she wanted to explain the same later, for the same is not permissible. No amount of oral evidence is permissible to alter the contents of a written document. Oral evidence is permissible only to explain the document. l do not think that the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/04 could at all explain the said affidavit in the manner she wanted to explain the same later, for the same is not permissible. No amount of oral evidence is permissible to alter the contents of a written document. Oral evidence is permissible only to explain the document. When the document does not say that the same is based on any representation made by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04, by oral evidence, the same could not be inserted there. In those circumstances, it would have been impossible on the part of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/04 to establish that the said affidavit was given by her relying upon any false representation said to have been made by the first wife of the deceased and her son being the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04. 6. Compassionate appointment is required to be reached as quickly as possible. Although a compassionate appointment is given to a dependent of the deceased employee but such an appointment is given for the purpose of saving the family from financial difficulties. In such view of the matter, it is a practice, at least in this state, that the compassionate appointee is made to give an undertaken that he will look after the well being of the other members of the family of the deceased and if he fails to do so serious consequences will follow. 7. Therefore, the concept of compassionate appointment is ingrained with the concept of family. When the personal law permits second marriage during the lifetime of the first wife, that itself encompasses a larger family. The family in the instant case would be the first wife and her children as well as the second wife and her children. It would be impossible and incorrect to hold out that the first wife and her children is one family and the second wife and her children is another. All the members who were directly dependent on the deceased employee, i.e. the first wife and her children as well as the second wife and her children should have been treated as members of one family for in law they are comprised of one family. A compassionate appointee of such a family is required to look after the financial well being of each and every member of such family. A compassionate appointee of such a family is required to look after the financial well being of each and every member of such family. It was, therefore, incorrect on the part of the District Magistrate, Nalanda to issue two dependency certificates, one showing that the first wife and her children were dependent on the deceased employee and the other showing that the second wife and her children were dependent on the deceased employee. They should have been treated to be members of one family and only one dependency certificate showing that the first wife as well as the second wife and their children were dependent on the deceased. 8. Since compassionate appointments are to be reached as quickly as possible, it was necessary to see whether a member of the family was entitled to be appointed. In such circumstances, when the second wife had, by an affidavit held out that she has no objection, in the event, a compassionate appointment is given to the second son of the first wife, then a compassionate appointment should have been given to the second son of the first wife and the same should not have been rejected on the ground that the first son of the first wife has not applied for such appointment and that a false affidavit was filed in support of the said application of the second son or that there are two dependency certificates. In the event, it was represented by the petitionerin C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04 which was accepted and still is being accepted by every member of the family, that the first son of the first wife is not traceable for a long time, that fact was supported by the fact that he did not make an application for compassionate appointment for himself. In the event, the Board was suspicious that the said son of the deceased is well placed, it was open to the Board to make an enquiry In relation thereto and obtain appropriate information from others, but instead of doing that, only on the ground that no steps have been taken to establish that the said son is not traceable, the Board should not have rejected the application of the second son of the first wife of the deceased for compassionate appointment, for negative cannot be proved. 9. 9. When the matter was heard by me it appeared to me that although there were some differences at one stage in between the first and the second wives and their respective children but there is every possibility of a settlement being reached. In such view of the matter l made an effort to have the matter settled in between the mambers of the family of the deceased. They have kept my expectation and have filed affidavits to suggest that they are eager to have their differences settled. The principle bone of contention in between the two wives was that the first wife has received a sum of Rs. 6,28,485/- in excess on account of terminal benefits, of which 50% is due to the second wife. The first wife and her children have agreed to pay 50% Rs. 6,28,485/- to the second wife and her children, and accordingly a Demand Draft Bearing No. 8227548 dated 28th February, 2005 issued by the State Bank of ft, Biharsharif Branch and payable to he second wife at Darbhanga for a sum of Rs.3,14,242.50 has already been obtained by them. In view of eagerness to pay the said sum the claim of the second wife in said Title Suit stands met. The learned Counsel appearing on behalf of second wife submitted that in addition to paying the sum of Rs. 3,14,242.50/- some amount of money per month should be paid by the second son of the first wife of the deceased, namely the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04, to the second wife after he gets an appointment, so that she can look after her minor children properly. This request was made inasmuch as the first wife and her children are residing at Biharsharif, whereas the second wife and her children are residing at Darbhanga. l feel that this is a reasonable request. Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04 has conveyed his clients eagerness to pay a specified sum per month to the second wife of the deceased employee after he gets an appointment, and has left the quantum to be fixed by the Court. I think, having regard to the qualification of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04, he may be appointed at the best in a Class-Ill post. I think, having regard to the qualification of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04, he may be appointed at the best in a Class-Ill post. With the salary that he would get in such post, after maintaining himself and his immediate family to be had in future, he would have hardly any amount left with him, for providing his two mothers and step brothers and sisters. In such view of the matter, I feel that for the first five years after getting appointment, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04 should pay a sum of Rs. 1250/- to the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/04 and thereupon a sum of Rs.750/- for another three years and a sum of Rs. 500/- for another five years. 10. In those circumstances, I dispose of these writ petitions by quashing the orders by which the aforementioned applications for compassionate appointments have been rejected. l direct the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04 to deposit with the Board the draft mentioned above as well as an affidavit affirmed by him stating therein that he would pay a sum of Rs. 1250/- per month for first five years, then a sum of Rs. 750/- per month for the next three years and thereafter a sum of Rs. 500/- per month for five years next following to the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/ 04 in the event of getting an appointment on Compassionate ground. 11. Immediately on receipt of the Draft and the affidavit as mentioned above, the Board snail call upon the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/04 and handover to her the said draft and the moment, the said draft is handed over, it shall be deemed that all objections by the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/04 in the matter of giving appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04 stand withdrawn and her application for compassionate appointment is recalled. Within seven days therefrom the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7333/04 shall withdraw the above suit. 12. The respondent Board is directed to take note that the dependents of the family of the deceased employee is comprised of his first wife and children begotten by him through the first wife as well as the second wife and the children begotten by him through the second wife. 12. The respondent Board is directed to take note that the dependents of the family of the deceased employee is comprised of his first wife and children begotten by him through the first wife as well as the second wife and the children begotten by him through the second wife. The Board is also directed to consider afresh application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 8771/04 alongwith all recommendations made to give such compassionate appointment and to give compassionate appointment in such post as the board may deemed fit and proper as quickly as possibfe but not later than 12 weeks from the date of the service of a copy of this order upon the Board. 13. This disposes of both the writ petitions. There shall be no order as to costs.