IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11259 of 2007 THE UNION OF INDIA & ORS Versus MOST.RAMSAKHI DEVI & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh For the Respondents: Mr. S. R. Sharan ------------ P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ------------ Dated, the 5th August, 2008. We heard counsel for the petitioners. From the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (impugned in this writ petition), it transpires that the Railway Board Circular dated 2nd January, 1992 has been noticed by the Tribunal. In paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of the impugned order, the Tribunal observed thus : ”4. Resisting the claims of the applicants, the respondents have filed written statement stating therein that the applicant no. 3 is the son of the second wife of the deceased employee who never disclosed the fact about his second marriage. The second marriage is not permissible under the provisions of the Hindu Law, and as such the applicant No. 3 is not entitled for compassionate appointment. In support of their arguments, the respondents have referred to the Railway Board Circular dated 2.1.1992, which says that sons and daughter of the second wife are not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. The stand taken by the Railway Board administration in the present matter is too technical. The deceased employee had two wives and his post retirement benefits and family pension were shared between the two wives. When the matter came down to the son of the second wife applying for a job in which the first wife, as appears from the records, had also supported the application of the applicant for appointment on - 2 - compassionate grounds, the railway administration has refused to consider the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment. 6. Having split the pensionary benefits between the two wives, I fail to understand where is the difficulty in considering the case of the applicants and providing a job to the son of the second wife when, as records shows, there is no rival and the first wife has given her consent that the son of the second wife be employed.” 2. We find no justifiable reason to take a view different from that of the Tribunal. The writ petition has no merit. It is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J AMIN/-