IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.385 of 2009 KALINDI DEVI WIFE OF LATE VISHWANATH PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PACHAURI, P.O. PACHAURI, P.S. DEEP NAGAR, DISTRICT NALANDA. --- APPELLANT. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR ( SECONDARY EDUCATION) HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, BIHAR SECONDARY EDUCATION OFFICE, AMRAPALI BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA. 3. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION. 4. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, RANCHI 6. THE HEAD MASTER, HIGH SCHOOL TAMAR, DISTRICT RANCHI. ----------- 2/ 16-04-2009 This unfortunate lady, Kalindi Devi, filed writ petition stating that even though her husband died on 01.05.1999, while he was working as a physical Teacher in High School, Tamar, in Ranchi District in the undivided State of Bihar, she has not been appointed on compassionate ground. The petitioner-appellant filed an application on 15.11.1999 before the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna for her appointment on compassionate ground and also filed an application before the District Education Officer, Ranchi. When her applications were not disposed of, she filed the instant writ petition. Learned Single Judge found that the deceased employee married the petitioner when his first wife was - 2 - alive and as such she is not legally wedded wife of the deceased employee and , therefore, she is not entitled to any compassionate appointment. According to the petitioner the first wife of the deceased employee had not applied for compassionate appointment on account of illness and physical infirmity and the children of the petitioner being minors, the petitioner, second wife, filed an application for compassionate appointment. The entire retiral benefits were paid to the first wife. The compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule. Public appointment is not to be given on inheritance, as normally only by public advertisement, appointments can be made. Since compassionate appointment, is an exception to the general rule, the rule or schemes has to be complied strictly. The Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others; reported in (1994) 4 SC – 138 held that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The financial background and other rules from time to time fixed by the respondent Government has also to be looked into. It is pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner that pensionary benefit was granted to second wife in the case of Mosmat Usha Kuar vs. The State of Bihar and others, reported in 1998(1) PLJR 560. The - 3 - amount payable in that was already quantified and when first wife relinquished that right, then retiral benefits were paid. In this case also all the retiral dues have already been paid to the first wife. But disbursement of money to a person as directed by the pensioner who is entitled to receive, is a different mater from compassionate appointment. That right can be transferred to second wife. In another decision compassionate appointment was given in the case of Mustaque Ahmad Vrs. The State of Bihar & Ors.; reported in 2004(4) PLJR 366. So far as the reliance placed on the case of Mustaque Ahmad, the same appears to be totally misconceived as it related to the case of wife of deceased Muslim employee where personal law permits such second marriage although the same is not permissible under the Government servants Conduct Rules and in such circumstances this Court had merely issued direction to clarify the matter. In this case the petitioner cannot claim as a legally married second wife . At the most she can be a concubine. Hence this Court cannot direct for appointment on compassionate ground of a person, who is not legal wife of the deceased employee. Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out various decisions, where directions were issued to give the son-in-law etc. to be appointed on compassionate ground. The only wife and the children of - 4 - legally married are entitled to get compassionate appointment in this case and as such we are unable to grant directions to give compassionate employment to the petitioner in absence of any rule of the Government issued in the year 1999. We see no ground to direct the authorities to give employment to the petitioner. This appeal is dismissed. BTiwary/ ( J. B. Koshy, CJ ) ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J )