IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6681 of 2006 KALINDI DEVI, W/o late Vishwanath Prasad, resident of village & P.O. Pachauri, P.S. Deep Nagar, Dist. Nalanda--------petitioner Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Director (Secondary Education),Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Bihar Secondary Education Office, Amrapali Bhawan, Bailey Road,Patna 3.The State of Jharkhand through the Director Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department,Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 4.The Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department,Govt. of Jharkhand, Ranchi 5.The District Education Officer, Ranchi 6.The Head Master, High School Tamar, District Ranchi-----------------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.R.K.P.Singh For the State of Bihar:Mr.Anil Kr.Singh,A.C.to G.P. 16 For the State of Jharkhand:Mr.Satyendra Dutta Mishra. ---- 2. 27.2.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State of Bihar and learned counsel for the State of Jharkhand. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to appoint her on compassionate ground on the death of her husband in harness when the undisputed fact is that husband of the petitioner died on 1.5.1999 while he was working as a Physical Teacher in High School, Tamar,in Ranchi District in the undivided State of Bihar. 2 The husband of the petitioner was admittedly married to one Dhanmanti Devi but since he had no issue he subsequently contracted marriage with the petitioner and three children were born from the said marriage, all of whom are admittedly minors. The wife of the deceased employee Dhanmanti Devi had not applied for compassionate appointment on account of illness and physical infirmity and the children of the petitioner being minors were not competent to apply and, therefore, the petitioner filed an application claiming compassionate appointment. The admitted fact further is that the entire retiral-cum-death benefits on account of death of the deceased employee was paid to the first wife. Learned counsels for the respondents submit that the petitioner being the so-called second wife has no recognition in the eye of law and she does not have the legal status of a wife and in the said circumstances there could be no occasion to consider her case for compassionate appointment which under the Circular dated 5.8.1991 of the State 3 Government can only be granted, inter alia, to the wife of the deceased Govt. employee. As against the aforesaid contention, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision in the case of Mosmat Usha Kuar vs. The State of Bihar & ors. Reported in 1998(1) PLJR 560, in which this Court remitted the matter to the State respondents to consider the case of the petitioner, who was similarly situated so-called second wife, for appointment on compassionate ground and held in paragraph 8 of the said decision as follows : “So far as the marriage of petitioner with Laldeo Singh is concerned, the respondents cannot ignore the same giving reference of Hindu Marriage Act, 1965, particularly when they have accepted the petitioner as second wife of late Laldeo Singh and have paid the post-death benefits. It has not been disputed by the respondents that the first wife, Most. Sumitra Kuar, has not made any application for her appointment on compassionate ground.” Learned counsel also relies upon a decision in the case of Mustaque Ahmad vs. The State of Bihar & ors.: 2004(4)PLJR 366, in which this Court had issued direction to the 4 Secretary, Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department to issue proper direction in matters where the personal law of an employee permits second marriage which is otherwise not permissible under the Government service. On a consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and the submissions of the parties, this Court does not find any force in the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as the reliance placed on the case of Mosmat Usha Kuar is concerned, the same was obviously rendered in circumstances where the so-called second wife had received the entire post-death benefits of the deceased Government employee and the first wife had not applied for compassionate appointment. As to reliance placed on the case of Mustaque Ahmad, the same appears to be totally misconceived as it related to the case of wife of a 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 the Secretary, Personnel & 5 Administrative Reforms Department to clarify the matter and for framing necessary policy and issuing orders. It is evident from the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act that no legal status is conferred upon a marriage contracted during subsistence of the previous marriage while the first wife is living and, thus, in the said circumstances, the so-called second marriage cannot result in the spouse getting the status of a second wife. It has been repeatedly held by the Courts that the status of such woman who contracts marriage with a Hindu who has a wife living, is no better than that of a concubine. The Circular dated 5.8.1991 of the State Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms clearly mentions that compassionate appointment can be granted only to the wife of the deceased Government employee. Since the petitioner is not in the eye of law the wife of the deceased Government employee she cannot be entitled to any compassionate appointment. In view of the aforesaid discussion, there appears to be no merit in the case of 6 the petitioner. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/