##PAGE1## ##PAGE2##

the marriage between the deceased employee and the appellant was accepted by this Court.

4. Ms Kanchan Lata submitted that the appellant’s financial position is quite dire. She submitted that though the son has been given benefits, the same are only on paper and actual financial benefits have not yet reached the son.

5. Ms Kanchan Lata relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar and others (2000) 2 SCC

431 to support her contentions.

6. Ms Kanchan Lata submitted that for all the above reasons, the impugned order may be interfered with and a suitable direction be issued to the respondents for granting compassionate appointment to the appellant.

7. Md Zaid Imam, learned counsel for the respondents, defended the impugned order on the basis of the reasoning reflected therein. He submitted that proviso to Rule 23(1) of the said Rules requires specific permission before any second marriage is contracted. He submitted that no such permission was granted in the present case. He relied on the decision of Ghulam Nabi Shergujri Vs. The United of India & Anr., 2016 SCC OnLine Tripura 259 to support his contentions that such a permission was mandatory.

8. Mr Zaid Imam, therefore, submitted that this appeal may be dismissed.

9. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.

10. In this case, Late Barnawas Maltu, who was working as Panchayat Sewak, died in harness on 11.07.2011. The appellant claims to be the second wife of Barnawas Maltu.

11. The respondents rejected her application for compassionate appointment and retiral benefits for herself and her son. Therefore, she instituted a petition before this Court. The first wife, Sarojani Kisku, also instituted a petition claiming similar benefits. Both these petitions were disposed of by order dated 13.09.2017.

12. Then Sarojini Kisku, the first wife, filed L.P.A. No. 613 of 2017. In this appeal, the present appellant was impleaded as 6^th respondent. The appellate Court disposed of the appeal by judgment and order dated 28.02.2019 by inter alia modifying the learned Single Judge’s order and holding that the first wife and the minor son of the second wife, i.e. the appellant herein, were entitled to the distribution of the gratuity amongst themselves. However, no such relief was granted to the present appellant, though directions were issued to reconsider the case of both wives for compassionate appointment. Upon reconsideration, the present appellant’s case for compassionate appointment was denied.

13. The present appellant, therefore, instituted W.P.(S) No. 3994 of 2026 to challenge the decision dated 28.07.2021 by which she was denied compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order dated 02.07.2026, has dismissed the said W.P.(S) No. 3994 of 2024 and, hence, this appeal.

14. Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1976, which is stated to be applicable to the State of Jharkhand, reads as follows:

-

“23. Restrictions regarding marriages. – (1) No Government servant shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with a person having a spouse living; and (2) No Government servant, having a spouse living shall enter into, or contract a marriage with any person :

Provided that Government may permit a Government servant to enter into or contract, any such marriage as is referred to in clause (1) or clause (2) if it is satisfied that :-

(a) such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such Government servant and the other party to the marriage; and (b) there are other grounds for so doing.

(3) A Government servant who has married or marries a person other than of Indian Nationality shall forthwith intimate the fact to the Government.”

15. In this case, no permission is produced on record to indicate that Barnawas Maltu, while in service, obtained any permission to enter into the contract of second marriage with the appellant. The learned Single Judge has correc