HEMANT GUPTA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. The matter has been placed before this Bench in terms of an order passed by a Division Bench of this Court on 14th of July, 2014 doubting the correctness of Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2592 of 2007 (Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway and others Vs. Uma Devi) on 22nd of April, 2010 wherein, it was held that the children born out of second wife without permission of the Railway authorities are not entitled to seek compassionate appointment in terms of the circular issued by the Railways on 24th of January, 1992.

3. The brief facts leading to the present reference to the larger Bench is that writ-applicant invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court claiming appointment on compassionate grounds after death of his father on 18th of March, 1991. The application for appointment on compassionate grounds was filed on 7th of April, 1992 after he attained majority. The learned Single Bench allowed the writ application for the reason that his application could not be rejected simply on the ground that he is son from the second wife of the deceased.

4. In appeal, the appellants relied upon an order of the Division Bench of this Court in Uma Devi’s case (supra) to contend that the compassionate appointment can be sought and granted only in terms of the policies framed from time to time. Since the policy dated 24th of January, 1992 specifically excludes the compassionate appointment to the second widow and her children, therefore, the writ-applicant would not be entitled to compassionate appointment, even if he is treated to be legitimate child for the purposes of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The relevant circular reads as under :-

“Sub: Appointment of compassionate grounds-cases of second widow and her wards.

1. It is clarified that in the case of railway employees dying in harness etc. leaving more than one widow along with children born to the 2nd wife, while settlement dues may be shared by both the widows due to Court orders or otherwise on merits of each case, appointments on compassionate grounds to the second widow and her children are not to be considered unless the administration has permitted the second marriage, in special circumstances, taking into account the personal law etc.

2. The fact that the second marriage is not permissible is invariably clarified in the terms and conditions advised in the offer of initial appointment.

3. This may be kept in view and the cases for compassionate appointment to the second widow or her wards need not be forwarded to Railway Board.

4. Kindly acknowledge receipt.”

5. Apart from the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the appellants relies upon Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 19743 of 2012 (The Union of India & Ors. Vs. Binda Devi) decided on 2nd of May, 2013 as well as Division Bench judgment of this Court reported as The Union of India through the General Manager, East Central Railway & Ors. Vs. Most. Uma Devi & Ors., 2015 (1) PLJR 945.

6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the writ applicant submitted that the first wife has given no objection for the appointment of the writ-applicant on compassionate grounds, therefore, the circular, as relied upon by the appellants, would not be applicable.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that right to seek compassionate appointment emanates from the policy of the employer. In the absence of policy of compassionate appointment, there is no inherent right with the family members of the deceased to seek compassionate appointment. If the policy of compassionate appointment does not permit the second wife and/or her children for appointment on compassionate grounds, this Court on the basis of right of inheritance will not confer the right to seek compassionate appointment. It is so held in judgment reported as LIC v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar, (1994)