1 wp6810.10 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6810 OF 2010 Alkabai Vithoba Sonawane : Petitioner V/s. District Health Officer, Nashik & Ors. : Respondents .... Mr.N.R.Bubna for the petitioner. Ms M.P.Thakur, Asstt. Govt. Pleader for respondent nos.1 to 3. .... CORAM : D.D. SINHA & A.R.JOSHI, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 10, 2011. P.C.: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Asstt. Govt. Pleader for the respondent nos.1 to 3. 2. This Writ Petition is directed against the order dated 28.5.2008 passed by the Joint Director of Health whereby the petitioner, who is the second wife of late V.K.Sonawane, was given a part of the pensionary benefits. The grievance of the petitioner is that the first wife of late V.K.Sonawane was given a part of the pension. The grievance of the petitioner is that the authorities erred in giving a part of the pension to the 2 wp6810.10 first wife and part thereof to the petitioner, who was the second wife of late V.K.Sonawane, by ignoring the compromise decree passed by the Civil Court dated 25.2.2005. It is submitted that as per the said compromise decree, the first wife was only entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground since V.K.Sonawane, who died while in employment, whereas the petitioner (second wife) was entitled for all pensionary benefits. It is contended that the authorities failed to take into consideration the compromise decree and the rights flowing from the same in favour of the petitioner and, therefore, the impugned order is bad in law. 3. The counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that there is no evidence submitted by the first wife in order to demonstrate that she was the legally wedded wife of V.K.Sonawane and in the absence thereof, the order impugned is unsustainable in law. 4. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the learned counsel and perused the impugned order passed. At the outset, we must express that there is nothing in the petition to demonstrate whether Mrs.Shakuntlabai (first wife of V.K.Sonawane) was not the legally wedded wife and in the absence thereof, it is not possible for us to agree 3 wp6810.10 with the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this behalf. So far as the compromise decree is concerned, the petitioner cannot claim right on the basis thereof which the law does not permit. It is well-settled that any compromise inconsistent with the law cannot be a compromise in the eyes of law. In the instant case, in the absence of any material to demonstrate either before the authority or before this Court that Mrs.Shakuntlabai was not the legally wedded wife of V.K.Sonawane, the contention canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in this regard, in our view, suffers from lack of merit. 5. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. (D. D. SINHA, J.) (A.R. JOSHI, J.)