ORDER A.K. Jain, Member (J). This application has been filed by the applicant for the following relief :- 8.1 The rejection order communicated vide letter dated 14.05.2010 passed by the Divisional Personnel Officer, E.C. Railway (Annexure A/9) be quashed. 8.2 The respondents be directed not go give effect to the rejection order dated 14.05.2010 and to re-reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh and to pass the final order within a reasonable period. 8.3 The respondents be directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground within a stipulated period considering the special circumstances involved in this case. 8.4 The Railway Board's circular No. 1/92 be declared as unjust unfair and unconstitutional and ultra vires. 8.5 The respondents be directed not to discriminate the petitioner and to extend the benefit of employment on compassionate ground at par with the same and similarly situated persons. 8.6 Any other relief or relief’s for which this petitioner is entitled to. 2. No written statement has been filed on behalf of the respondents. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that since only a limited question of eligibility of children of second wife for appointment on compassionate ground is involved this case could be finally heard and disposed of at the admission stage itself. With the consent of learned counsels for both the sides, the case was therefore finally heard at the admission stage itself. 3. The facts of the case in brief as mentioned in the OA are that the father of the applicant died on 28.01.2007 while he was still in service as Chief Office Superintendent at Carriage & Wagon Depot Barwadih under East Central Railway. The deceased employee left behind his old mother two wives namely Smt. Premlata Devi [1st wife] and Smt. Pratima Prasad (Devi) [2nd wife] two sons and one daughter. The first wife 'of the deceased does not have any issue and she is a mentally retarded lady with 50% disability as per disability certificate issued by District Handicapped Board as contained in Annexure A/3. After the death of father of the 4] applicant his mother (2nd wife of the deceased employee) of the applicant applied for payment of death-cum-retirement dues of her husband. Vide letter dated 20.08.2008 issued by Senior Divisional Personnel Officer. After the death of father of the 4] applicant his mother (2nd wife of the deceased employee) of the applicant applied for payment of death-cum-retirement dues of her husband. Vide letter dated 20.08.2008 issued by Senior Divisional Personnel Officer. ECR Hazipur (Annexure A/1), she was asked to produce affidavit sworn in before an Executive Magistrate stating that her husband married twice in his lifetime and that his first wife was suffering from mental disease as also a guardianship certificate of first wife issued by a competent Court of law alongwith proof of her mental disease. Information was also sought about dates of the first and second marriage. Thereafter the applicant filed a Civil Miscellaneous case bearing No.01 of 2009 before the learned District Judge. Latehar under Section 52 of Mental Health Act 1987 for appointment as guardian and manager of the Estate of Smt. Premlata Devi widow of Late Law Kumar Prasad. In the detailed order dated 22.05.2009, the learned Session Judge. Latehar has observed that Smt. Premlata Devi who appeared before the Court on notice was mentally ill and she required proper and care and assistance in her day to day life. No objections were also filed by the mother of the deceased employee and his other children in favour of the appointment of the applicant as guardian and manager of the Estate of Smt. Premlata Devi. In such situation the learned Session Judge appointed the applicant as guardian and manager, of Smt. Premlata Devi (Annexure A/2). Accordingly death-cum-retiral dues were' paid in the name of the applicant and deposited in the bank as directed by the learned Session Judge. She is also getting pension regularly without any disturbance. 4. The applicant being the eldest son of the deceased employee applied for his appointment on compassionate ground stating clearly that he was a matriculate and after the death of his father there was none to look after all the family members of the deceased including his grandmother. Bari Ma (first wife of the deceased) his mother one brother and sister (Annexure A/6). This was followed up through several representations including representations dated 19.08.2009 and 04.11.2009 addressed to the concerned authorities. Finally vide letter dated 14.05.2010 (Annexure A/8) he was informed the decision of the competent authority as communicated vide GM (P). ECR Hajipur letter dated 04.05.2010. Bari Ma (first wife of the deceased) his mother one brother and sister (Annexure A/6). This was followed up through several representations including representations dated 19.08.2009 and 04.11.2009 addressed to the concerned authorities. Finally vide letter dated 14.05.2010 (Annexure A/8) he was informed the decision of the competent authority as communicated vide GM (P). ECR Hajipur letter dated 04.05.2010. The decision reads as under ;- "Railway Board vide Circular No.1/1992 has made clear that in the case of Railway employee dying in harness etc leaving more than one widow along with children born to the second wife while settlement dues may be shared by both the widows due to Courts orders or otherwise on merit of each case, appointment on compassionate ground to the second widow and her children are not to be of second marriage for appointment on compassionate ground holding Railway Circular 1/1992 as illegal and not valid. The said circular was in fact quashed by Calcutta Bench of the Tribunal vide order dated 17.09.2009 passed in OA No. 1117 of 2008 in the matter of Kajali Karmakar v. Union of India & Others. She further submitted that as per rules/procedure the applicant being eldest son of the deceased employee was entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. He cited following judgment/order in support of the case of the applicant :- 1. Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Others, AIR 2000 SC 735 ; 2. Purushottam Kumar v. State of Bihar & Others, 2005 (3) PWR 458: 3. Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Others, 2002 (2) PWR 686: 4. CAT Principal Bench Judgment dated 01.09.2006 in the matter of Subhash Singh v. Northern Railway through G.M. 5. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others v. Ujjwal Kumar Ray 1996 (1) PLJR 769 (Judgment of the then Ranchi Bench of Hon'ble Patna 'High Court now Han'ble Jharkhand High Court). 9. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment dated 13.04.2011 of Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand in writ petition. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. & Others v. Ujjwal Kumar Ray 1996 (1) PLJR 769 (Judgment of the then Ranchi Bench of Hon'ble Patna 'High Court now Han'ble Jharkhand High Court). 9. The learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the judgment dated 13.04.2011 of Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand in writ petition. (s)No. 4461 of 2008, No. 4495 of 2008 and No. 1083 of 2010, in the matters of Union of India the Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, ECR Dhanbad v. Basanti Devi & another, Shankar Thakur & another and Samaullah Ansari respectively, a copy of which was presented by the learned counsel for the respondents to the Tribunal and the learned counsel for the applicant at the time of hearing. He submitted that in the said writ petition order passed by this Tribunal dated 16th July 2007 and 20th July. 2009, passed in OA Nos. 256 of 2005, 61 of 2006 and 60 of 2006 were under challenge. The issue involved was also the same namely eligibility of child of second wife of the employee (married during the life time of first wife) for appointment on compassionate grounds. The Tribunal, allowed the OAs but the Hon'ble High Court set aside the orders passed by the Tribunal. The learned counsel for the respondents pleaded that in view of this judgment of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court upholding the Railway Board Circular 1992, the OA was fit to be dismissed. 10. The learned counsel for the applicant stated that the Railway Circular No. 1/92 had already been quashed and set aside and this fact was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court. Had that been done judgment would have been otherwise. In this connection she also drew attention to judgments of CAT. Calcutta Bench in the matter of Kajli Karmakar and Principal Bench of CAT in the cases of Subhash Singh (supra). 11. We have perused the records and considered the submissions made by the parties. 12. At the outset, we note that in the order passed by the learned Session Judge. Latcher on 22.05.2008 in Miscellaneous Case No. 01/2009 (Annexure A/2), the second para reads as follows :- "Law Kumar Prasad married with Prem Lata Devi but have got no issue from her Prem Lata Devi is below average understanding and is lunatic. 12. At the outset, we note that in the order passed by the learned Session Judge. Latcher on 22.05.2008 in Miscellaneous Case No. 01/2009 (Annexure A/2), the second para reads as follows :- "Law Kumar Prasad married with Prem Lata Devi but have got no issue from her Prem Lata Devi is below average understanding and is lunatic. Mother of the applicant lived with Law Kumar Prasad as his wife and the applicant and Vikash Prasad and Namita Kumari were born. The marital relationship .between Law Kumar Prasad and mother of the applicant was recognized by the society and the applicant and his brothers and sisters were recognized by the society as sons and daughters of Law Kumar Prasad." 13. Vide letter dated 20.08.2008 as contained in Annexure All which was issued in response to the letter of mother of the applicant, the respondents asked her to give an affidavit about her marriage with the deceased employee as also information on the dates of first and second marriages. There is a clear mention in the' said letter that family pension was payable to the first wife and as the first wife was suffering from mental ailment, guardianship certificate was asked for. Thereafter guardianship certificate was obtained in the name of the applicant who is son of second wife and the retiral dues were then settled and paid and kept in a bank account as per direction of the learned Session Judge. In the order there is clear mention that amount so received and deposited in the bank could be withdrawn from the bank only on previous order of the Court to safeguard the interest of Prem Lata Devi. This clearly shows that death-cum-retirement dues were paid to and received by the applicant on behalf of Prem Lata Devi. Thus his claim in such dues was apparently not raised by the applicant nor accepted by the learned Court. In para 4.7 of the OA, it is also stated that on the basis of Guardianship Certificate issued by the District Judge "all the retiral dues were paid to the petitioner and she is getting pension regularly without any disturbance". This indicates that even family pension is, being paid in the name of the first wife. The applicant has not enclosed copy of PPO or any order that family pension was sanctioned on 50% basis to both their wives. 14. This indicates that even family pension is, being paid in the name of the first wife. The applicant has not enclosed copy of PPO or any order that family pension was sanctioned on 50% basis to both their wives. 14. It is also noted that in the nomination form' of PF signed by the deceased employee name of Smt. Pratima Prasad was mentioned as wife (Annexure A/4). Again in communication dated 08.06.2008 issued by Sr. S.E. (Loco), ECR. Barwadih about family declaration of Late L.K. Prasad name of Smt. Pratima Prasad was mentioned as wife. The fact of second marriage of the mother of the applicant with the deceased employee has also not been denied by the respondents as is clear from the letter dated 20.08.2008 (Annexure All) wherein it is mentioned that after an enquiry by Welfare Inspector, it was found that Smt. Pratima Prasad was second wife of the applicant. 15. The limited question involved in this case is validity of Railway Board's circular No. 1/1992 and the eligibility of children of the second wife of an employee for appointment on compassionate ground. In this connection it will be use full to first discuss the judgments cited by the parties. 16. At the outset it is noted that the judgments in the cases of Rameahwari Devi (supra), Purushottam Kumar and Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal & Others (supra) have been elaborately discussed in the judgment dated 13.04.2011 of Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in CWJC Nos. 4461 of 2008, 4495 of 2008 and 1083 of 2010 in the matter of Basanti Devi & another, Shankar Thakur & another and Samaullah Ansari respectively. These writ petitions were lied challenging the orders passed by this Tribunal in OA Nos. 256 of 2005, 60 and 61 of 2006 in which the issue involved was the same as in the instant OA, namely entitlement of child of second wife of the employee, married during the lifetime of first wife, for compassionate appointment. Instead of discussing the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the aforementioned writ petitions heard jointly, it will be useful to quote the relevant extracts of the judgment as follows for better appreciation of the point of law involved :- "7. Instead of discussing the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in the aforementioned writ petitions heard jointly, it will be useful to quote the relevant extracts of the judgment as follows for better appreciation of the point of law involved :- "7. It is a settled law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment as held in various judgments and one of which was delivered by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India & Anr. v. Raj Kumar, reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661 , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that recruitment' to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation-providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependants of employees, who die in harness, do• not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the Rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter held that the claim of compassionate appointment is, therefore, traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. 8. So far this legal proposition of law is concerned this is accepted legal position and if we examine the issue raised in these writ petitions, keeping in view the above legal position then the applicants will have to show their claim on the basis of the employer's decision to provide employment to the dependent of deceased employee. The Circular No. E(NC)JJ/91/RC- 1/36 dated 2nd January, 1992 as follows ;- "It is clarified that in the case of railway employees dying in harness etc. having more than one widow along with children born to the 2nd wife, while settlement dues may be shared by both the widows due to Court orders or otherwise on merits of each case, appointments on compassionate grounds to the second widow and her children are not to be considered unless the administration has permitted the second marriage in special circumstances, taking into account the personal law etc. The fact that the second marriage is not permissible is invariable clarified in the terms and conditions advised in the offer of initial appointment. This may be kept: in view and the cases for compassionate appointment to the second widow or her wards need not be forwarded to Railway Board". 9. The said circular was not brought to the notice of the two Division Benches of the Patna High Court who decided the cases of the Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal (supra) and Purushotam Kumar (supra). The validity of this Circular has not been challenged which is in existence from 2nd January, 1992. Therefore so far the decision of the employer is concerned it clearly provides that children of second marriage of the employee shall not be eligible for compassionate appointment unless the employee obtained the permission for second marriage which could have been granted only in special circumstances. Admittedly the employees in the cases did not obtain any permission for second marriage by showing special circumstances for second marriage and therefore in view of the said circular dated 2nd January. 1992 was not brought to the notice of the two Division Benches referred above therefore both the Division Benches have no benefit of knowing the effect of the Circular in the light of the second law that compassionate appointment can be sought only when it is traceable to the scheme framed by the employer for such appointment. 10. So far as the case of Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal reported in 2002 (2) PWR 686 is concerned the said judgment is a brief judgment wherein it appears that sympathy more prevailed and therefore the Division Bench held that stand of the Railway Administration obviously denying the appointment to the children of second wife is too technical. So far as the case of Union of India v. Central Administrative Tribunal reported in 2002 (2) PWR 686 is concerned the said judgment is a brief judgment wherein it appears that sympathy more prevailed and therefore the Division Bench held that stand of the Railway Administration obviously denying the appointment to the children of second wife is too technical. In that case it was submitted that first wife was admitted to mental asylum and in that situation the employee contracted second marriage and since there was no child from first wife" therefore, second wife's child, who was equally entitled to the retirement benefits and family pension from the employer railway administration through his mother and, therefore, having split the pensionary benefits between the two wives, the Court observed that it is not difficult to provide a job under the rule of harness to the son of the second wife when as the record shows that there is no rival and first wife has given consent that the son of the second wife be employed. 11. In Purushottam Kumar's case (supra), the Division Bench of the Patna High Court took into consideration Rule 23 of the Bihar Government's Conduct Rules regarding marriage of the employee, whereunder, under sub-rule (1). it has been provided that no Government servant shall enter into or 'contract a marriage with a person having a spouse living and sub-rule (2) says that no Government servant, having a spouse living shill enter into or contract a marriage with any person. Then it has been observed by the Division Bench that admittedly the second marriage of the employee was misconduct in terms of the Government Servant's Conduct Rules but the first wife or any other person did not raise any objection during the life of the father of the appellant, i.e. in the life time of employee. Then the Division Bench considered the Government Circular contained in memo No. 3/C2-2067 I 90 KA. 13293 dated 5th October, 1991. This Circular provided for employment in Class-III and Class-IV posts in case of death of a Government servant during service period. 'The said memo also lays down the categories I persons entitled to the said appointment and other procedure for the same. 13293 dated 5th October, 1991. This Circular provided for employment in Class-III and Class-IV posts in case of death of a Government servant during service period. 'The said memo also lays down the categories I persons entitled to the said appointment and other procedure for the same. According to the Circular, only dependent will be given employment on compassionate ground and under the category of dependants are widow of the deceased employee, son, unmarried daughter and the widow of predeceased son and the order of preference would, the widow of the deceased, son, unmarried daughter and the widow of predeceased son. In Purushottam Kumar's case (supra), the aforesaid Circular was applicable and, therefore. the Division Bench held that since appellant, the son of the deceased, may he be outcome of a void marriage, in terms of Section 8 read with Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act which provides that any marriage solemnized after the commencement of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 in violation of Clause (1) of Section 5 shall be null and void. But even when such marriage is void, Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that notwithstanding that the marriage is null and void under Section 11, any child of such marriage would have been legitimate if the marriage had been valid, shall be legitimate. whether such child is born before or after the commencement of Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 1976 and whether or not a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under the Act and whether or not the marriage is held to be void otherwise than on a petition under the Act. In addition sub-section (3) of Section 16 provides that the child of a marriage which is null and void will have rights in or to the property of his parents only and not to the property of any other person. 12. The Division Bench in Purushottam Kumar's case, after considering the above provisions of law reached to the conclusion that though the marriage is void but the child born is a legitimate one and they will share the property equally with the legitimate children in their parents property and by a deeming provision illegitimate children of a second marriage have been treated to be legitimate and he will inherit the property in the same manner as a legitimate son of a valid marriage. 13. 13. Then the Division Bench proceeded to consider the effect of Hindu Succession Act and observed that in the parents property the son of the second wife also have the same right as the legitimate son of the first wife and there is no distinction and differentiation can be made with regard to share in the property of the parents. The Division Bench also considered the Apex Court decision given in the case of Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors., as reported in AIR 2000 SC 735 , wherein the Apex Court held that children of the void marriage are legitimate and the property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolve firstly on heirs in Class I which include widow and son. A son of the second wife being legitimate son will be entitled to the property of the deceased in equal share along with the first wife and her sons. Then the Division Bench of the Patna High Court considered a policy decision of the State Government for compassionate appointment which speaks about 'son' only and in the opinion of the Division Bench since son of the second marriage is also legitimate son and, therefore, the employee's second wife's son cannot be denied benefit of compassionate appointment. 14. With respect we are unable to subscribe the view expressed in Purushottam Kumar's case. Firstly, the compassionate appointment and right to inherit property have no co-relation, nor can be equated in any manner. The compassionate appointment is not a property which can be subject-matter of alienation and can be bequeathed whereas the devolving of property of, a person is governed by the law, may it be customary or may it be statutory law, whereas the service and benefit arising out of services are governed by the frame of the contract of service or the rules governing the service of the employees and by the scheme, if framed by the employer. The compassionate appointment depends solely upon the frame of contract between the employer and employee and cannot be made subject-matter to be governed by the personal law, when the employer has not provided so. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar (supra) clearly held that compassionate appointment is traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such appointment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar (supra) clearly held that compassionate appointment is traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such appointment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. Therefore, in our humble opinion, merely because illegitimate child has been put at par in the matter of inheritance, by specified and statutory provision, its benefit cannot be extended, so as to put a burden upon the employer when the employer specifically has disallowed such benefit to such successor of the employee. 15. We may again observe here that the said decision of Railway Board, not providing compassionate appointment to the child of second wife of the employee who contracted second marriage in the life time of the first wife, is neither under challenge nor has been shown to be unreasonable rather it appears to be in consonance with the public policy of the monogamy. Therefore, on this court also in our humble opinion the view expressed by' the Tribunal does not appeal to us. 16. In addition to above, in Purushottam Kumar's case also the fact and situation was entirely different. In Purushottam Kumar's case, there was a specific provision for providing employment to the dependant of the Government servant who died while in service and it provided appointment to the employees' "son" without any restriction against appointment to the son of second wife. Therefore, on facts also Purushottam Kumar's case has no application as in the present case there is specific restriction against the appointment to the son of second wife of the employee who contracted marriage' in the life time of first wife." 17. The above order has been passed after taking into consideration the judgments in the case of Rameshwari Devi, Purushottam Kumar and Union of India' v. Central Administrative Tribunal (supra). The Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court has observed that the children of the second wife of the deceased employee who contracted second marriage during the lifetime of his first wife without prior approval of the railway authorities as per Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1996 had no legal right to claim appointment on compassionate ground in view of the Railway Board Circular 1/1992. 18. 18. The case of BCCL v. Ujjwal Kumar Ray (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the applicant is also based on the same principle that' children from second marriage are legitimate and are entitled for compassionate appointment. The order in the said case is an old order of the Ranchi Bench of Hon'ble Patna High Court (now Jharkhand High Court) whereas the order in the case of Basanti Devi and Others heard with two other cases (supra) as cited by the respondents is the latest order of the Hon'hle High Court in case of compassionate appointments. 19. We further take note of the fact that in the writ petition filed in the case of Basanti Devi and two other, petitions beard together the Railway Board's Circular dated 02.01.1992 (RB Circular No. 1/1992 was not under challenge. Moreover, the fact that the said circular was quashed by CAT Calcutta Bench vide order dated 17.09.2009 passed in OA 1117 of 2008 in the matter of Kajali Karmakar v. UOI and that in the order dated 01.9.2006 in the case of Subhash Singh (supra), the Principal Bench of CAT at New Delhi Interpreted the decision, contained in Railway Boards circular dated 02.01.1992 as invalidated in view of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi (supra), were not brought to the notice of Hon’ble Jharkhand High. Court. The relevant extracts of the orders in aforesaid cases are as follows :- (a) Extracts. of order dated 17.09.2009 of CAT, Calcutta Bench In OA No. lLl7 of 2008 "7. .........In the instant case, however the second marriage was not even disputed by the first wife and admittedly there was no issue from the first marriage which was the reason for second marriage by consent from the first wife. The respondents have also not taken any disciplinary action against the late employee for contracting second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage, On the other hand they disbursed the family pension and other dues to the second wife and his children. In a decision earlier rendered by this Court in OA 33/2006 dated 30.09.2008 this Court found as follows;- "The scheme of compassionate appointment has been introduced for providing employment assistance to the family of the deceased employee who faces economic setback due to sudden death of the bread-earner. In a decision earlier rendered by this Court in OA 33/2006 dated 30.09.2008 this Court found as follows;- "The scheme of compassionate appointment has been introduced for providing employment assistance to the family of the deceased employee who faces economic setback due to sudden death of the bread-earner. It is not disputed that in this case the applicant No. 2 is the son of a late employee and there was no other son born from the first marriage. Therefore he has claimed the benefit of compassionate appointment. It is true that under Railway Rules dependent family members do not include son born from second marriage mainly on the ground that he is being treated as an illegitimate child. Hon’ble Apex Court has now held such a son is legitimate son and is entitled to share of property of the father. In my opinion therefore, there cannot be any distinction between a son from first wife or from the second wife though such marriage may be void. Hence the claim of applicant No. 2 for compassionate appointment cannot be turned down on the ground it was done." 8. In the circumstances taking evidence from the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court that son/daughter born out of the second marriage is entitled to the benefit of compassionate appointment, the case of the applicant cannot be distinct or separate. Any decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is binding on the other Court and citizens vide Article 141 of the Constitution and that becomes the law of the land and since there is a declaration that the children born out of the second marriage though are legitimate has to be accepted in this case. In this case the applicant is on a - better footing that there is a Civil Court decree in favour of the applicant along with her mother and brother and all retirement benefits of the deceased employee has been disbursed to them and the 1st wife admittedly divorces. In this case the applicant is on a - better footing that there is a Civil Court decree in favour of the applicant along with her mother and brother and all retirement benefits of the deceased employee has been disbursed to them and the 1st wife admittedly divorces. In the circumstances, I am of the considered view that the applicant has made out a case and her case for-compassionate appointment has to be considered by the respondents, Coming to the letter in which much reliance has been given by the respondents dated 20.1.1992 (Annexure R/1), I am of the view that it has become obsolete and bad in law in view of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Therefore, I have no hesitation in setting aside and quashing the said letter of the Railway Board which can be no longer in force. I therefore, set aside and quash the said order." (b) Extracts of Principal Bench of CAT, New Delhi order dated 01.09.1006 in case of Subhash Singh v. Northern' Railway. "If pensionary benefits could be given to the progeny of the second wife, why not an employment on compassionate ground. Respondents have been in the wrong to rely upon the circular dated 2.1.1992 of the Railway Board for denying consideration for appointment on compassionate ground though settlement dues were directed to be paid to both the widows. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rameshwari Devi (supra) is the law of the land. It has to be interpreted liberally instead of taking a constricted view which would invalidate the direction contained in circular dated 2.1.1992 for non- consideration of entitlement of the second widow or her wards for compassionate appointment." 20. In the instant case also the applicant has prayed for declaring Railway Board's circular No. 1/1992 as unjust, unfair and unconstitutional. 21. On perusal of the judgments of the coordinate Benches of this Tribunal cited by the learned counsel for the applicant as extracted above we note the decisions in both the cases have essentially been arrived at based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi (supra). However, the applicability of said judgment in case' of compassionate appointment has elaborately been discussed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Basanti Devi heard with other two cases (supra). However, the applicability of said judgment in case' of compassionate appointment has elaborately been discussed by the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Basanti Devi heard with other two cases (supra). The Hon'ble Court has made a clear distinction between the right of children of second wife with regard to the property of the father and their right to claim appointment on compassionate ground. Relying upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India v. Raj Kumar (2010) 11 SCC 661 the Hon'ble Court has held that the right to compassionate appointment is only traceable to the scheme framed by the employer for such appointment and there is no right whatsoever outside the scheme. It is important to note the following specific observation of the Hon'ble Court, "Therefore, in our humble opinion merely because illegitimate child has been put at par in the matter of inheritance, by specific and statutory provisions, its benefit cannot be extended, so as to put a burden upon the employer when employer specifically has disallowed such benefit to a successor of the employee." 22. Furthermore regarding the reasonableness of the Railway Board's circular the observation of the Hon'ble High Court in para 15 of its order as quoted above is also very important to note. In the opinion of the Hon'ble Court, the circular the of Railway Board appears to be in consonance with the public policy of monogamy. 23. It has further been brought to our notice that legality of the Railway Board's circular was considered by the Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata in the case of Smt. Namita Goldar and Anr. v. Union of India & Ora., reported in 2010(1) CLJ (Cal) 465. 23. It has further been brought to our notice that legality of the Railway Board's circular was considered by the Hon'ble High Court at Kolkata in the case of Smt. Namita Goldar and Anr. v. Union of India & Ora., reported in 2010(1) CLJ (Cal) 465. The relevant extracts of the judgment in the said case are as follows :- "The Supreme Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2000 (2) SCC 431 specifically held that the second marriage during the subsistence of first marriage may be illegal and the children born out of such second marriage are legitimate and are also entitled to the estate of the father, Paragraph 14 of the aforesaid judgment is set out hereunder :- "It cannot be disputed that the marriage between Narain Lal and Yogmaya Devi was in contravention' of Clause (i) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act and was a void marriage. Under Section 16 of the Act children of a void marriage are legitimate. Under the Hindu Succession Act 1956, property of a male Hindu dying intestate devolves firstly on heirs in Clause (1) which include the widow and son. Among the widow and son, they all get shares (See: Sections 8, 10 and the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956), Yogmaya Devi cannot be described as a widow of Narain Lal, her marriage with Narain La! being void. The sons of the marriage between Narain Lal . and Yogmaya Devi being the legitimate sons of Narain Lal would be entitled to the property of Narain Lal in equal shares' along with that of Rameshwarti Devi and the son born from the marriage of Rameshwarti devi and Narain Lal. That is, however, the legal position when a Hindu male dies intestate." (Emphasis supplied). 4. Admittedly, in the present case second marriage of the deceased employee was accepted by the first wife since she never challenged the second marriage and did not even lodge any complaint before the railway authorities for taking appropriate action against the said deceased employee for contracting second marriage and therefore, we have-no difficulty to accept that the deceased employee married for the second time upon obtaining specific consent from the first wife. There is also no dispute that the said deceased employee used to live with both the wives and the four children of the second wife. Since the first wife dies shortly after the death of the deceased employee, family pension and other retiral benefits also disbursed to the second wife and his children. The compassionate appointment was claimed by the eldest son of the second wife as the first wife was issueless and also died shortly after the death of the employee concerned. 5. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Rameshwari Devi (supra), the children of the second cannot be treated as legitimate and referring to Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act specifically held that children of a void marriage are legitimate. 6. In view of the law as settled by the Supreme Court no distinction can be made amongst the children of the first and second - wife of a deceased employee. In the present case, however, first wife was issueless and died shortly after the death of the employee concerned. 7. Therefore, the eldest son of the second wife, namely the petitioner No.2 herein is entitled to claim, appointment on compassionate ground on account of the sudden death of the employee concerned. 8. The learned Tribunal in our opinion, has rightly held that the claim of the petitioner No. 2 herein for compassionate appointment cannot be turned down on the ground it was done although the learned Tribunal did not issue any mandatory direction on the respondent authorities 'for granting compassionate appointment to the said son of the second wife, namely the' petitioner No. 2 herein and directed the General Manager, Eastern Railway to refer the matter to the Railway Board for taking decision. We are, however, of the opinion that the circular issued by the Railway Board on 2nd January, 1992 preventing the children of the second wife from being considered for-appointment on compassionate ground cannot be sustained in the eyes of law in view of the specific provision of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and pursuant to the . decision of the 'Hon'bIe Supreme Court in the cases of Rameshwari Devi (supra). 9. decision of the 'Hon'bIe Supreme Court in the cases of Rameshwari Devi (supra). 9. In the aforesaid circumstances, the aforesaid circular issued by the Railway Board on 2nd January, 1992 stands quashed to the extent it prevents the children of the second wife from being considered for appointment on compassionate ground." 24. In the instant case also, there is no protest from the first wife. In fact as it appears from the pleadings, she being issueless and mentally not in sound health, the deceased employee married second time. The applicant is also declared guardian of the first wife to look after her. 25. Thus on one hand we have the judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Basanti Devi (supra) and on the other the judgment of Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta in the case of Namita Goldar (supra). Admittedly, the validity of Railway Board's circular' RBE 1/1992 was not under challenge before the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court in the case of Basanti Devi (supra). Again the fact that this circular was quashed by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to the extent that it prevents the children of second wife from being considered for appointment on compassionate ground, in the case of Namita Goldar (supra) and, by CAT, Calcutta Bench in the cases of Kajali Karmakar declared as invalidated by Principal Bench in the case of Subhash Singh (supra) was never brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court. As such, we are of the view that the order of the Hon’ble Jharkhand High Court cannot be adopted as law and that the fact of quashing RBE 1/1992 by the Hon'ble High Court at Calcutta to the extent stated above in Namita Goldar's case (supra) or the order of CAT in cases referred to above cannot be ignored. 26. Taking that view of the matter the prayer in the OA is allowed and the respondent No. 1, i.e. GM, ECR, Hazipur or any other competent officer under him is hereby directed to reconsider the case of applicant as per rules ignoring the RBE Circular 1/1992 to the extent it makes the children born of second wife ineligible for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 27. This exercise shall be completed within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 27. Before we part with this case, we are constrained to observe that when the Indian Railway especially the Railway Board is one and when orders passed by various coordinate Benches of this Tribunal or Hon’ble High Courts are within the knowledge of the Railways, why there should not be any serious endeavour on the part of the Railways. especially the Railway Board to circulate decision of the Tribunals or Hon’ble Courts on their circulars/orders, especially those involving policy questions and/or issue fresh circulars or corrigendum in the light of such orders of the Tribunal/Hon’ble Courts to avoid any confusion in the matter and to bring uniformity in decision making. The fact that the Railway' Board's circular 1/1992 was quashed to some extent by Hon’ble High Court, Calcutta in the case of Namita Goldar (supra) ought to have been within the knowledge of the Railway Board. The Board or its subordinate organisations/ offices should have brought this to the notice of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand for a proper adjudication in the matter. If there is any difficulty on the part of Railway Board in getting information about the orders passed in different cases all over the country, they may even review their decision on Union of India or Railway Ministry being represented through concerned General Manager in cases before the' CAT and be party to such cases through Chatrman, Railway Board. It is expected that the Railway Board shall look into this aspect. 28. The OA is disposed of with above noted direction and observation. No order as to costs. OA disposed of.