IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12070 of 2005 PUTUL DEVI Versus BIHAR STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD& ORS ----------- For the petitioner:- Mr. Mahendra Prasad Bhartee For the Respondent-Board: Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh For Respondent No. 7: Mr. Ashutosh Jha. 3. 29.07.2008 Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to put the alias name Sunita Devi with respect to respondent no. 7 in the course of the day. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, respondent Bihar State Electricity Board and Respondent no. 7. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents for appointment on compassionate ground on death of her late husband Upendra Kumar while in service. It is stated that the said Upendra Kumar had died on 17.8.1998 while still in service. Thereafter the petitioner on 20.5.2000 filed a representation (Annexure-2) before the General Manager-cum-Chief Engineer (Central), Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna claiming all the retirement benefits as well as making a claim for appointment on compassionate ground. The said representation was followed up with other representations but no action was taken by the authorities of the respondent-Board. It is stated that the petitioner’s late husband had a so called second wife, namely, Sunita Devi (Respondent no. 7). Learned counsel for respondent no. 7 does not dispute the facts stated in the counter affidavit of the Respondent-Board that the so called marriage of respondent no. 7 took place with the husband - 2 - of the petitioner subsequently. He however, bases his claim on the basis of a compromise entered into between the petitioner and respondent no. 7 under which it is alleged that respondent no. 7 was to get the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the Electricity Board states that the Board has not taken any decision in the matter for the reason that the petitioner has never applied in the prescribed proforma either for sanction of terminal benefit or for appointment on compassionate ground and merely informed the Board that she is the first wife of late Upendra Kumar and further informed that the respondent no. 7 is the second wife. It is further submitted that an application for terminal benefits was submitted only by respondent no. 7. Reference is also made to the agreement arrived at between the petitioner and respondent no. 7 in which the petitioner had given up the claim for compassionate appointment. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that respondent no. 7 having admittedly performed the so called marriage with Late Upendra Kumar after he was already married to the petitioner, she cannot claim the status of wife in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act since her marriage is not a marriage in the eye of law and is void and non est from its very inception. Thus no claim can be raised by her for compassionate appointment in the Electricity Board on the said basis. So far as the compromise is concerned that is not a matter which can decide the legal right of the parties. Under the Circulars of the Board a - 3 - wife of the deceased employee may be given compassionate appointment. The respondent no. 7, Sunita Devi not being a wife of the deceased employee in the eye of law no compassionate appointment can be given by the Board to her. So far as the stand taken by the Board that the petitioner has not applied in the prescribed proforma for the said purpose and in terms of the circulars of the Board the time limit for filing the same being five years, the same has already expired and her case may not be considered, this Court does not find any force in the said submission. The petitioner had within two years of the death of the deceased employee filed a representation before the authorities of the Board in which she had claimed for being appointed on compassionate ground. In the said circumstances, considering the fact that she is the wife of a class IV employee, the authorities of the Board ought to have informed her that she should file an application in the prescribed proforma. The same not having been done by them, their plea on this ground cannot be accepted. In the light of the aforesaid discussions, the writ application is partly allowed and the petitioner is directed to file an application before the competent authority in the prescribed proforma within two months from today which shall be considered by the authorities of the Board in accordance with law but without taking any plea regarding limitation. Let the said application be finally decided within a period of six months from its presentation. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)