Mosmat Usha Kuar vs The State of Bihar and Others

S.J. Mukhopadhaya, J.—This case relates to appointment of Petitioner on compassionate ground.

One Laldeo Singh was an employee under the Respondent State. He died in harness on 14th of September, 1993 in a bus accident. According to the Petitioner, said Laldeo Singh had two wives. One Sumitra Kuar and Anr., the Petitioner (Usha Kuar). There was no issue of Laldeo Singh from the first wife whereas there are two minor Sons and one daughter of Laldeo Singh out of the second wife, the Petitioner.

After the death of Laldeo Singh the Petitioner applied for post-death benefits as well as appointment on compassionate ground to maintain the family. The Respondents have released the post-death benefits of Laldeo Singh in favour of the Petitioner, including the Group Insurance amount, Gratuity, Family Pension etc. However, the claim of the Petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the impugned order dated 8th of December, 1995.

According to the Counsel for the Petitioner, the first wife, Most Sumitra Kuar never applied for compassionate appointment and the second wife, i.e. the Petitioner having applied the Respondents could not have rejected the claim on the ground that such appointment could have been given to the first wife.

A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents. They have not disputed the fact that the Petitioner is the second wife and was provided with post-death benefits of Laldeo Singh. However, according to them, the second marriage of late Laldeo Singh with the Petitioner was ab-initio void and against the provisions of Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules. 1976 and so the Petitioner cannot be provided with appointment on compassionate ground.

Having heard the parties and perusal of writ petition as well as the counter affidavit, according to me, the stand taken by Respondents is mis-conceived and illegal.

So far as the Bihar Government Servant Conduct Rules, 1976 is concerned, the same was applicable to the husband of the Petitioner, while he was in service. After his death the said rule cannot be made applicable in the matter of, appointment of widow-Petitioner.

So far as the marriage of Petitioner with Laldeo Singh is concerned, the Respondents cannot ignore the same giving reference of Hindu Marriage Act, 1965, particularly when they have accepted the Petitioner as second wife of late Laldeo Singh and have paid the post-death benefits. It has not been disputed by the Respondents that the first wife, Most. Sumitra Kuar, has not made any application for her appointment on compassionate ground.

For the reasons stated above, I set aside the impugned order dated 8th of December, 1995 and remit the matter to the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, in accordance with law and communicate, the order within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observation and direction.