Mihir Kumar Jha, J. – Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief prayed in this writ application – "…to appoint the petitioner on the Class-III, IV post on compassionate basis and for grant of all consequential benefits." 2. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner claims to be admittedly the second wife of late Janardan Singh, Sub Inspector of Police, who had died in harness on 20.01.2002, there would be no question of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground because the second wife in the lifetime of first wife of a Hindu will have no right to claim appointment on compassionate ground. 3. To that extent, this Court also finds no force that such second marriage performed by the deceased employee for maintaining his progeny as has been stated in paragraph no. 5 in this writ application in the following words: – "That the Sub-Inspector Janardhan Prasad Singh was married to one Neelam Singh but unfortunately they have no children so Janardhan Prasad Singh married to sister Punam Singh of his wife Neelam Singh for continuing his entity (Vansh) after taking permission from department. Fortunately Punam Singh delivered one son Bittu Kumar unfortunately he mental retarded." 4. As a matter of fact, this Court is also not impressed that the petitioner is the own sister of the first wife and that they are living together after the death of deceased employee or that the first wife had sworn affidavit having no objection to the appointment of the petitioner. 5. This Court, while holding so, shall have to keep in mind that there is no place for second wife in the policy of compassionate appointment of the State Government dated 5.10.1991 which puts only four persons eligible for such appointment, namely, (i) wife, (ii) son, (iii) unmarried or divorced daughter, (iv) daughter-in-law of predeceased son. Thus, this moment this petitioner cannot be held to be legally wedded wife of the deceased employee it will have to be held that she was entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 6. Thus, this moment this petitioner cannot be held to be legally wedded wife of the deceased employee it will have to be held that she was entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. 6. As a matter fact, the respondents having considered the case of the petitioner rejected the same by a reasoned order dated 28.03.2005, as contained Annexure-4, relevant portion whereof reads as follows: – ^^vijk/k vuqla/kku foHkkx] fcgkj] iVuk Kkikad 2381@jŒdkŒ fnukad 23-8-2005 ,Œ&1@98 lsok esa] uke%& fo/kok ique flag ifr%& LoŒ tuknZu ÁŒ flag] xzke $ iks&djukSrh] Fkkuk&cf[r;kjiqj ftyk & iVukA fo"k; & viŒ vuqŒ foHkkx ds LoŒvŒfuŒ tuknZu Álkn flag dh f}rh; iRuh ique flag dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij prqFkZoxhZ; in ij fu;qfDr ds laca/k esa --------------------------------------- funs'kkuqlkj mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd mDr ekeys esa dsUæh; vuqdEik lfefr dh vuq'kalk fuEu Ádkj gS%& ÁFke iRuh thfor gSA vr% fgUnw fookg vf/kfu;e] 1955 ds vUrxZr f}rh; fookg voS/k gSA fcgkj ljdkjh lsod vkpkj fu;ekoyh ds fu;e 23 ds varxZr f}rh; fookg dh vuqefr dk Áek.k Hkh ÁLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA vr% vkosnu vLohd`rA lwpukFkZ gLrk{kj@& 22@8 vkj{kh mi lg&fujh{kd ¼viŒ½ viŒ vuqŒ foHkkx] fcgkj] iVukA** 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner also does not dispute the aforesaid settled position in law that the petitioner's claims, based on her being second wife, is not recognized by Hindu Law but then he has relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of Mosmat Usha Kuar vs. State of Bihar reported in 1998(1)PLJR 560. 8. From reading of the aforementioned judgment, it becomes clear that in that case Most. Usha Kuar (supra), the second wife, had not only been recognized by the respondents by making payment of post retirement benefit to her, but had also been favoured with a direction of this Court to the respondents for considering her appointment on compassionate ground by taking into account that the first wife had never claimed appointment on compassionate ground. Here, the facts are otherwise inasmuch as the Government has never recognized the second marriage of the petitioner for any purpose including for appointment or retirement benefit. 9. Here, the facts are otherwise inasmuch as the Government has never recognized the second marriage of the petitioner for any purpose including for appointment or retirement benefit. 9. Once, this vital material difference on fact is found in the present case, the order passed in the case of Mosmat Usha Kuar (supra) cannot be made applicable which has to be confined to the fact of that case alone though the same can also be easily even other held to be per incuriam inasmuch as it does not consider the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules and the policy of compassionate appointment of the State Government in vogue, dated 5.10.1991. 10. It is, in fact, the consistent case of the respondents that the Government has clearly banned second marriage of a Hindu Government servant under Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules and, therefore, the claim of the petitioner of getting married to late Janardan Singh is itself not borne out from the Government records specially when no such permission was given by the State Government to Late Janardan Singh in his life time for performing the second marriage with the petitioner. 11. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, this writ application must fail and is accordingly dismissed.