B. S. PATIL, J. ( 1 ) BY the impugned endorsement dated 22. 03. 2005 the request made by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground is rejected on the ground that the petitioner being the son of the second wife of the deceased the provisions governing appointment on compassionate grounds as in force in the respondent-Corporation do not permit such an appointment being given. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner is the son of the second wife of the deceased-employee Sr. Husen basha who expired on 24. 02. 1997 while in service. Since the petitioner was a minor at the time when his father died, after attaining majority he has applied seeking compassionate appointment. The relevant regulations providing for compassionate appointment known as the Karnataka electricity Board Employees' Recruitment (Appointment on Compassionate Grounds) regulations, 1997, provide that the dependent of the deceased employee seeking appointment shall be his or her legally wedded spouse and 'their' sons whether married or unmarried and unamarried daughters who were jointly living with him. The controversy, in the wake of the provision contained in Rule 2 (b) which defines the word family has assumed significance in the present case as the deceased Husen Basha being a muslim was entiled to take the second wife as per the personal law and the second wife being a legally wedded wife, his son, the petitioner herein it is contended is entitled even as per the Regulations governing the compassionate appointment framed by the Corporation to claim appointment. ( 3 ) COUNSEL appearing for the respondent Sr. N. K. Gupta on the other hand brings to the notice of the Court, Rule 28 of the Karnataka Electricity Board Employee's Service (Conduct) regulations, 1988 which states that no Board employees who has a wife living shall contract another marriage without obtaining the permission of the Board notwithstanding that such subsequent marriage is permissible under the personal law for the time being applicable to him. Drawing support from the said Rule Learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the term legally wedded spouse and their sons as used in the rules governing the compassionate appointment has to be understood in the context of regulations 28 of the relevant rules. Drawing support from the said Rule Learned Counsel for the respondent would submit that the term legally wedded spouse and their sons as used in the rules governing the compassionate appointment has to be understood in the context of regulations 28 of the relevant rules. If so understood, even if the personal law of an employee permitted him to take the second wife, the second marriage if contracted without the prior permission of the Board would be illegal and the dependant son born out of such wedlock will not be entitled to claim compassionate appointment under the regulations, is his contention. ( 4 ) HAVING heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, it is clear that the term legally wedded spouse as used in rule 2 (b) of the regulations governing compassionate appointment has to be understood keeping in mind Regulation 28 of the conduct rules regardless whether the personal law permits second marriage or not as long as he is the employee of the Corporation and claims benefit under the regulations of the Corporation. If the second marriage was contracted without the prior permission of the Board, the Corporation will be entitled to contend that such a marriage for the purpose of the grant of compassionate appointment under the 1997 regulations shall not be recognised to extend the benefit to the dependent. The question now is as to when the second marriage was contracted and whether at all any prior permission was obtained by the Board before the second marriage was contracted. This Court cannot record any finding on this contentious issue which has to be ascertained by the authorities by holding enquiry. The matter therefore has to be remitted back for fresh consideration. ( 5 ) IN this view of the matter, the impugned endorsement is set aside. The matter is remitted for fresh consideration. The petitioner is at liberty to produce materials to establish that the second marriage was contracted after obtaining necessary approval from the Board. The petitioner shall submit such particulars to the respondent-authorities within a period of 4 weeks from today. The competent authority shall consider the same and dispose of the application within a further period of 8 weeks therafter. Petition stands disposed of in terms stated above with no order as to cost.