Delhi High Court
Parvati Devi vs Union Of India & Ors on 26 September, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 26.09.2012
+ W.P.(C) 4705/2012
PARVATI DEVI ... Petitioner
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr Satish Chand Gupta
For the Respondents : Mr Kumar Rajesh Singh
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 11.05.2012 passed
by the Central Administration Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi, in T.A.
No. 05/2012. The petitioner's plea for compassionate appointment has been
rejected. The petitioner was the second "wife" of Late Shri Raja Ram who
was employed as Gangman in Delhi Division of Northern Railway. The said
Late Shri Raja Ram was posted at Tughlakabad and died in service on
09.12.2000. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that
the petitioner ought to have been granted the benefit of compassionate
appointment on account of the fact that her husband had died in service. It
was further submitted that though Late Shri Raja Ram had another wife,
namely, Smt. Kailasho Devi, the two of them, that is, the petitioner and
Kailasho Devi entered into a private arrangement whereby the pension of
Late Shri Raja Ram was shared by them. It is further submitted by the
learned counsel for the petitioner that Smt. Kailasho Devi's son had applied
for compassionate appointment but he could not be given that appointment
because he did not have the requisite qualifications. It is because of that
reason that the petitioner is now seeking compassionate appointment in place
of her deceased "husband" Late Shri Raja Ram.
2. The Tribunal held that the petitioner cannot have any claim to
compassionate appointment inasmuch as she cannot be regarded as a 'wife'
of Late Shri Raja Ram inasmuch as that would be contrary to section 5 (1) of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 as the petitioner is alleged to have married
Late Shri Raja Ram, when he already had a wife, namely, Smt. Kailasho
Devi.
3. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that they have acted
within the four corners of the Circular dated 02.01.1992 issued by the
Railway Board, Ministry of Railway, Government of India on the subject of
"appointment on compassionate ground- Cases of second widow and her
wards." The said Circular reads as under:-
"GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (BHARAT SARKAR)
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS/RAIL MANTRALAYA
(RAILWAY BOARD)
RBE No. 1/1992
No.E (NG) II/91/RC-1/136 dated 02.01.1992
Subject:- Appointment on compassionate grounds
-Cases of Second widow and her wards.
It is clarified that in the case of Railway employees dying
in harness, etc. leaving more than one widow along with
children born to the second wife, while settlement dues may be
shared by both the widows due to Court orders or otherwise on
merits of each case, appointments on compassionate grounds to
the Second widow and her children are not to be considered
unless the administration has permitted the second marriage, in
special circumstances, taking into account the personal law, etc.
2. The fact that the second marriage is not permissible
clarified in the terms and conditions advised in the offer of
initial appointment.
3. This may be kept in view and the cases for compassionate
appointment to the second widow or her wards need not be
forwarded for Railway Board.
4. Kindly acknowledge the receipt."
4. It is apparent upon a plain reading of the said circular that
compassionate appointment is not to be given to the second widow unless
the administration has permitted the second marriage in special
circumstances taking into account the personal law. Insofar as the personal
law of the petitioner and Late Shri Raja Ram is concerned, they are governed
by Hindu Law and consequently by the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. That act
does not permit a second marriage during the subsistence of a earlier
marriage. As such the so-called marriage between the petitioner and Late
Shri Raja Ram is not a recognized and valid marriage under Hindu Law.
Therefore, there was no question of the administration having considered the
question of granting permission for this second marriage. Even otherwise, as
per para 3 of the Circular it is evident that cases for compassionate
appointment to the second widow or her wards are not be forwarded to the
Railway Board inasmuch as they are not to be considered for the said
purpose.
5. In view of the foregoing, there is no merit in the petitioner's case and
the petitioner cannot be considered for compassionate appointment. The
decision of the Tribunal and the authorities below is correct on this aspect of
the matter.
6. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J
SEPTEMBER 26, 2012
kb
