Randeep Murmur vs The State of Bihar and Others

Rekha Manharlal Doshit, C.J.—This application has been filed by the petitioner presumably under Order 6, Rule 17 of the CPC for amendment to the writ petition. Under the proposed amendment, the petitioner has challenged the constitutional validity of the Government Circular dated 23rd June, 2005 debarring the children of the Government servants born of the second marriage contracted during the subsistence of the first marriage from the benefits of compassionate employment. The application is allowed. Amendment to the writ petition will be carried out in red ink within ten days, failing which the amendment shall stand rejected.

CWJC No. 20684 of 2011

This writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is placed before us under the reference made by the learned single Judge under order dated 16th December, 2011.

The petitioner is the son of one Parmeshwar Murmu born of the second marriage of Parmeshwar Murmu while his first marriage was subsisting. The said Parmeshwar Murmu while working as Hawaldar in Bihar Police Service died in harness on 3rd October, 2006. Consequent to his death, the petitioner being the dependent son applied for compassionate employment. The said application has been rejected on 27th March, 2009 on the sole ground that the petitioner''s father had, without the permission of the State Government, contracted second marriage while his first marriage was subsisting.

The scheme of compassionate employment clearly postulates that under the Rules of Conduct a Government servant entering into second marriage, without the permission of the State Government, during the subsistence of the first marriage amounts to misconduct leading to punishment of dismissal from service. The children born out of such marriage are not entitled to compassionate employment.

We must note that the aforesaid provision has been challenged on the ground that under the Hindu law or Hindu Succession Act, 1956, such children have a right to inheritance from the properties of their father. The impugned scheme is contrary to the provisions contained in the Hindu Succession Act. We see no merit in the challenge to the aforesaid scheme. The scheme itself is benevolent scheme and is contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The Hon''ble Supreme Court has time and again held that the scheme has to be applied as it is without expanding its meaning. We may therefore refer to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Jharkhand and Others Vs. Shiv Karampal Sahu,

It is not in dispute that under the prevalent scheme the child born out of second marriage is not entitled to compassionate employment. The petitioner, therefore, cannot have a right to compassionate employment.

Learned advocate Mr. Ram Hirday Prasad appearing on behalf of the petitioner has relied upon the judgments of this Court in the matter of Purushottam Kumar @ Purooshattam Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar and Others, and Sandeep Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and Others, ). In both the above matters, this Court has invoked the provisions contained under the Hindu Succession Act. The law laid down in the above mentioned judgments is no longer a correct view in view of the above referred judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court. Writ Petition is dismissed.