Hon’ble Yatindra Singh, J.—The main question involved in this appeal revolves around exercise of writ jurisdiction. The question is, should we, in exercise of our writ jurisdiction, direct the authorities to consider a claim for compassionate appointment of a dependent of a deceased employee, who had married for the second time during the life time of his first wife or decline the same.

THE FACTS

2. One Satai (the Deceased) was the Petrol Man in the U.P. Power Corporation (the Corporation). Smt. Satina Devi was his wife. He did not have any children from her. He filed an application to grant him permission to marry again.

3. The Executive Engineer by the order dated 24.10.1978 granted permission to the Deceased to marry again. This was on the basis of agreement between the Deceased and Satina Devi as well as on the medical report that they cannot have any children. There was a caveat in the permission that in case any child was born from the first wife then his relation with the second wife would come to an end.

4. The Deceased married Kaushalya Devi on 30.12.1980. Sri Ramesh Chand (the Appellant) was born from this second marriage.

5. The Deceased died in harness on 19.11.2000. There is said to be an agreement between the two widows by which the first wife Satina Devi was entitled to receive the post retiral benefits and the Appellant was entitled for compassionate appointment.

6. On the basis of the aforesaid agreement, the Appellant filed an application on 4.10.2002 for compassionate appointment under mŸkj Áns'k fo|qr ifj"kn lsok dky esa e`r ifj"knh; lsodksa ds vkfJrksa dh HkrhZ fu;ekoyh 1975 (Uttar Pradesh Rajya Vidyut Parishad Sewakal Men Mrit Parishadiya Sewako Ke Ashrito Ki Bharti Niyamawali, 1975) (the Dying-in-harness Rules).

7. On the receipt of the application, the Executive Engineer, on behalf of the General Manager, wrote a letter dated 28.11.2002 to the headquarters. In the letter, it was mentioned that Satina Devi had agreed that the Deceased may marry for the second marriage to continue the family lineage and after death of the Deceased it was agreed that:

? Satina Devi would get the post retirement benefits; and

? The Appellant could apply for compassionate appointment for which Satina Devi would not have any objection.

In the light of the aforesaid facts, the guidelines were asked for, whether the Appellant could be considered for compassionate appointment.

8. The headquarters sent its advice on 25.5.2003, opining that the children from the second marriage cannot be granted legitimacy on the basis of the agreement between the parties. It can only be done after the competent Court gives a decision in this regard. The general manager was advised to do needful in the matter.

9. It appears that no formal order rejecting the application was passed but the Appellant filed Writ Petition No. 10736 of 2003 for quashing the letter dated 25.5.2003 and for a direction to consider his application on merits.

10. This writ petition was dismissed by the single Judge on 15.10.2003 on the finding that:

? Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956 provides inheritance to the children from the void marriages over the property of their parents. However, the right for compassionate appointment is not a right to property of the Deceased;

? The children from such marriages cannot defeat the rights of the other persons namely the legally married wife and her children to the property, such as retiral benefits and pension of the Deceased: such other persons are entitled for the same.

? The agreement is a void document.

Hence, the present appeal.

POINTS FOR DETERMINATION

11. We have heard Sri V.P. Shukla, counsel for the Appellant and Sri Nripendra Mishra, counsel for the Corporation. The following points arise for determination in the appeal:

(i) Whether the permission, granted by the Executive Engineer to marry second time during lifetime of the first wife was legal;

(ii) Whether the Appellant is a legitimate son;

(iii) Whe