IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.77 of 2009 Most. Binita Devi, W/o Late Bindeshwar Jha, resident of village Andauli, P.S. Bahera, District Darbhanga. At present residing at House of Shambhu Sao, Near D.M. Office, P.S. Jehanabad, District Jehanabad……………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Water resources Department, State of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad. 4. The Deputy Collector, Revenue Division, Gaya. 5. The Executive Engineer, Water Ways Division, Gaya…………………………………….………..Respondents ----------- 3 05.04.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. In this writ application, petitioner has challenged a letter of the Collector, Jehanabad contained in Memo No.1423 dated 27.11.2007 (Annexure-6) by which the Executive Engineer has been informed that the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected as there was no proof in the office in respect of marriage of petitioner with the deceased employee as second wife. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was married to the deceased employee after his first 2 wife had already died. Therefore, the marriage of petitioner with the deceased employee was perfectly legal and valid. He submits that accepting the validity of marriage of petitioner with the deceased employee, respondents, after death of the employee, had released the death-cum- retiral benefits in her favour also. He also submits that since being the wife of the deceased employee, petitioner was entitled for family pension, the same was also sanctioned in her favour. He submits that these acts of the respondents show that petitioner was admitted and acknowledged as legally wedded wife of the deceased. In the circumstance, no further evidence was required by the respondents to establish her legal right to get compassionate appointment under the scheme. This writ application was filed on 05.01.2009 with service of two copies of the same in the office of the learned Advocate General. However, till today no counter affidavit has been filed on 3 behalf of the respondents. This Court finds submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner as correct. If the respondents make it acknowledged the petitioner as one of legal heirs for release of death-cum- retiral benefits to her and sanctioned family pension in her favour, it has to be treated as their acknowledgement of the petitioner being legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. In that capacity, petitioner had a legal right to apply for her appointment on compassionate ground. Her application was therefore, fit to be considered on merits treating her as widow of the deceased. In the circumstances, this Court finds the said decision of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee communicated through the impugned letter of the Collector as contained in Annexure-6 is not sustainable in law. The decision as appearing from the letter of the Collector is, therefore, quashed. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner for 4 compassionate appointment on merits in accordance with law in the very next meeting of the District Compassionate Appointment Committee which may be scheduled to be held after receipt/production of a copy of this order. This application is, therefore, allowed in terms, as indicated above. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)