Back
Rejects Second Wife's Claim for Without Permission Under Conduct Rules
Custom Cannot Override Conduct Rules, Says
The has firmly ruled that a second wife cannot claim when the deceased government employee failed to obtain official permission for the marriage under the . The of Chief Justice M.S. Sonak and Justice Rajesh Shankar dismissed an appeal by Martha Murmu, who sought appointment after her husband Barnawas Maltu, a Panchayat Sewak, on .
Background and Earlier Litigation
Barnawas Maltu died leaving behind a first wife, Sarojini Kisku, and the appellant as a second wife with a minor son. The respondents had rejected the appellant’s application for and . In earlier rounds, the High Court had directed distribution of between the first wife and the appellant’s son, but denied similar relief to the appellant. Despite a direction to reconsider her case, the authorities once again rejected her claim, leading to the present , which was dismissed by a on .
Appellant’s Arguments: Custom and Precedent
Appearing for the appellant, argued that the had ignored the proviso to . She contended that both the appellant and her late husband were members of the Santhali Tribe, whose permits a second marriage. She also pointed to the earlier order that had apportioned benefits to her son, arguing that this implicitly recognized the legality of her marriage. Citing the 's decision in , she submitted that children of a are and thus the wife's claim should be considered. She further highlighted the appellant's dire financial situation.
State’s Opposition: Lacking
Counsel for the State, , defended the , emphasizing that Rule 23(1) read with its proviso requires specific permission from the government before any second marriage can be contracted. He argued that no such permission was ever obtained by the deceased employee. Relying on , he maintained that such permission is mandatory and its absence is fatal to the claim.
Court’s Reasoning: No Substitute for Written Permission
After careful analysis, the upheld the ’s decision. The court quoted the relevant provision:
“23. Restrictions regarding marriages. – (1) No Government servant shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with a person having a spouse living; (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 such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to such Government servant and the other party to the marriage.”
The bench observed that no evidence existed to show that Barnawas Maltu had ever sought or obtained the requisite permission. “The learned has correctly held that in the absence of any such permission, the present appellant cannot insist upon based upon her second marriage while the marriage between Barnawas Maltu and his first wife was subsisting,” the court stated.
The further clarified that the argument was irrelevant because permission under the proviso is required even when the marriage is personally permissible. “The argument about the customs of the Santhali Tribe is also not directly relevant in this matter because there is nothing on record to show that the marriage with the appellant was contracted after obtaining permission under the of the Conduct Rules,” they emphasized.
Distinguishing Rameshwari Devi , the court noted that the in that case had only granted benefits to the children of a , not to the wife herself. Since the appellant’s son had already been given certain benefits, no further relief could be extended to the appellant on that basis.
Final Verdict and Implications
“Based upon Rameshwari Devi , no relief can be granted to the appellant herein,” the bench concluded. They found no error in the ’s view and dismissed the appeal without any order as to costs.
The ruling reaffirms that government servants must strictly comply with conduct rules governing second marriages, and even a valid personal custom cannot bypass the requirement of official permission. This decision serves as a significant precedent for all such claims across the state, underscoring that is a , not a right, and is bound by strict statutory requirements.
