Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 587 (JHR)

Manjhali Devi v. State of Jharkhand

2014-05-05

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner who is claiming herself to be the second wife of late Shobhit Singh who died in harness on 11thOctober 1999, has claimed compassionate appointment in place of the deceased employee, but the same has been refused in terms of letter of the respondent no. 2 - The Secretary, Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Raj Bhasha Department, Govt. of Jharkhand dated 14thFebruary 2012 (Annexur-3). 3. The case of the petitioner is that the deceased had two wives, one namely, Saraswati Devi and the other, the present petitioner. The petitioner pursued a Succession case vide Succession case No. 9/2000 before the 1stAdditional District Judge, Seraikella which was disposed of on the basis of a compromise between the petitioner and the first wife Saraswati Devi on 10thJanuary 2007, as per annuexure-2, that the first wife Saraswati Devi will get 70% of the admissible amount and 30% of the amount shall be given to the second wife i.e. the petitioner. The claim for succession was made in respect of total amount of Rs. 2,72,258/- left behind by the deceased towards his death benefits and other dues. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that such a compromise was arrived at on the basis that the first wife would not object to the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, still respondents have not accepted the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment treating her to be the second wife. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment rendered by the learned Single Bench of this Court in the case of Yasmin vs. The State of Jharkhand & others [ 2006 (3) JLJR 110 ] in support of his contention that if two marriages are permissible and both wives were living together and if the first wife gives no objection in favour of the second wife for compassionate appointment, respondent would not be entitled to refuse the claim for compassionate appointment of the second wife. 5. Counsel for the respondent State submits that as per the terms of the compassionate appointment scheme, the second wife of the deceased employee is not entitled for compassionate appointment during the life of the first wife as there is no legality attached to the marriage of the deceased employee with the petitioner who claims herself to be his second wife. Counsel for the respondent State submits that as per the terms of the compassionate appointment scheme, the second wife of the deceased employee is not entitled for compassionate appointment during the life of the first wife as there is no legality attached to the marriage of the deceased employee with the petitioner who claims herself to be his second wife. It is submitted that opinion of the Advocate General was also taken by the respondent authorities who has also opined that such an appointment cannot be given to the second wife. He also submits that instructions were also sought from DOPT which again has replied that the claim for compassionate appointment is not permissible to a person who is the second wife in such circumstances. Respondents have further stated that the succession certificate obtained could only be in respect of admissible dues for which it was obtained and no further right could be created for claiming compassionate appointment. Relevant correspondence with the DOPT has also been enclosed with the counter affidavit. 6. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record. Apparently, the deceased employee had died much back i.e. on 11thOctober 1999 and there was a claim for getting the admissible dues between the petitioner and the first wife Saraswati Devi, for which a succession case was pursued by the petitioner along with her two daughters. It appears from the order dated 10thJanuary 2007 (Annexure-2) passed by the 1stAdditional District Judge, Seraikella that succession certificate has been issued on the basis of a compromise that 70% of the deposited amount would be received by the first wife and 30% would be given to the petitioner and her two daughters. It appears that compromise had also contained a term that the first wife would not object to the claim for compassionate appointment of this petitioner. However, such a compromise was legally tenable, so far as the claim for sharing admissible outstanding dues of the deceased employee was concerned. On the basis of such a compromise, second wife who is otherwise not entitled to compassionate appointment under the scheme of the respondent, would not claim appointment on that ground. Such an opinion has also been rendered by the office of the Advocate General as also by the DOPT. Appointment on compassionate grounds are to be governed by the scheme which are in vogue under the respondent organization. 7. Such an opinion has also been rendered by the office of the Advocate General as also by the DOPT. Appointment on compassionate grounds are to be governed by the scheme which are in vogue under the respondent organization. 7. In the judgment relied upon by the petitioner in the case of Yasmin (Supra), it appears that the claimant was belonging to a particular religion, personal law of which permits two marriages and in such circumstances, judgment in question was rendered on the claim of the second wife for compassionate appointment when the first wife had not made any objection to it. The petitioner's case is not governed by any such personal law. It further appears that the death itself had occurred in October 1999 and at this stage, no compassionate appointment could otherwise have been given even if the claim of the petitioner was otherwise legally sustainable. 8. Considering all these facts and circumstances therefore, I do not find any reason to interfere in the writ petition, which is accordingly dismissed.