YASIMIN Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case, the employee while working as Chowkidar at Punasi Spelway Division, Deoghar, died in harness leaving behind his two legally married wives and children. The second legally married wife applied for compassionate appointment and when the application was not considered, the widow moved this Court in W.P. (S) No. 3209 of 2003. This Court disposed of the writ petition on 13.2.2004 directing the Compassionate Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar to take decision in the light of the order passed by this Court. The order dated 13.2.2004 reads as under: Heard learned Counsel appearing for the parties. The matter relates to compassionate appointment. The Petitioner is second wife of the deceased Ali Hasan who died during service period on 6.2.1995. Petitioner made application for compassionate appointment. The matter was enquired and it was reported that petitioner is legal married wife of the deceased. In 1997 the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar asked the petitioner to file affidavit stating that she is legally married wife. Petitioner filed affidavit and necessary papers but inspite of that when no decision was taken petitioner moved the Lokayukta, Bihar Patna in 2000. The Lokayukta called upon respondent No. 3 why the claim has not been considered. The respondents thereafter sought legal opinion as to whether benefits of compassionate appointment be given to the second wife and since then matter is pending before the respondents for final decision. Learned State counsel has not disputed the fact that second marriage is permissible in Muslim Law. Respondents in their counter affidavit have not disputed the fact that petitioner is not legally married wife. This Court on 5.2.2004 after hearing the parties passed the following order:

(2.) FROM perusal of the aforesaid order it will appear that this Court passing the order after taking took all precautions and after full satisfaction that both the wives are living together and the first wife because of her physical illness gave 'No Objection' for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner who is the widow of the deceased. This Court, therefore, made it clear that the Circular will not come in the way in refusing the claim of the petitioner. In spite of the aforesaid judgment, the Committee headed by the Deputy Commissioner, Deoghar, in utter disregard of the judgment reiterated that the compassionate appointment cannot be given to the petitioner. The said order of the Deputy Commissioner has been challenged in this writ petition. On 13.3.2006, this Court passed the following orders:

(3.) PERHAPS , the Deputy Collector, who has sworn the affidavit on behalf of the Deputy Commissioner, is not fully aware of the fact that the compassionate committee already passed the order on 22.5.2004 rejecting the claim of the petitioner.