IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12496 of 2009 DEEPAK PASWAN Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 02/ 05.10.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner claims compassionate appointment. He was denied the same on the ground that his father late Kameshwar Paswan, had first married one Sakuna Devi, who was alive but had no issue. She made no claim for compassionate appointment herself. The petitioner is said to be the son of one Mano Devi, who was born out of a subsequent marital relationship between late Kameshwar Paswan and Mano Devi. The appointment was sought to be denied on the ground that under the Hindu Marriage Act, a second marriage while the first wife was existing was not considered valid. In support of the submission learned counsel urged that Sakuna Devi had given an affidavit that Mano Devi was the second wife of late Kameshwar Paswan and from which marital relationship the petitioner was born. Under the Hindu laws of inheritance, the petitioner may be an illegitimate child but could not be deprived of the benefit as heir and which includes compassionate appointment. More so, when the first wife herself was not willing to be an applicant for the same and had no objection to the case of the petitioner being considered keeping in mind the meaning and purpose of compassionate appointment. Learned counsel for the State rightly points that it remains a - 2 - matter for enquiry after hearing all concerned whether Mano Devi had a marital relationship with the deceased Kameshwar Paswan and from which marital relationship the petitioner was born. The writ application stands disposed off with the direction that the respondents shall conduct such enquiry of fact within a maximum period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before them and based upon the result of such factual enquiry after hearing all concerned if the petitioner being the progeny of late Kameshwar Paswan. His case is then required to be considered for compassionate appointment and final appropriate orders passed. The impugned rejecting the candidature of the petitioner is set aside to that extent for fresh reconsideration in terms of the aforesaid directions. DKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)