Court holds that second marriage without prior permission under Bihar Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1976, disqualifies claim for compassionate appointment despite customary tribal laws allowing polygamy
In a significant judgment dated September 1, 2026, the Jharkhand High Court (Division Bench) dismissed the appeal filed by Martha Murmu, the second wife of a deceased government servant, seeking compassionate appointment after her husband's death while in service. The appellant's claim was rejected primarily on the ground that the second marriage was contracted without obtaining prior permission as mandated under Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1976, which are applicable in Jharkhand.
The deceased employee, Barnawas Maltu, was a Panchayat Sewak who died on July 11, 2011. Martha Murmu claimed to be his second wife and filed an application for compassionate appointment following his demise. The State of Jharkhand denied her request citing the absence of prior permission for the second marriage as required by the Conduct Rules. The appellant challenged this denial in the High Court, which upheld the State's decision.
The Court examined Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1976, which prohibits government servants from contracting a second marriage during the subsistence of the first marriage without obtaining prior permission from the government. The Court emphasized that even if the second marriage is permissible under personal or customary laws, such as the customs of the Santhali Tribe to which the parties belonged, permission under the Conduct Rules is mandatory and cannot be bypassed.
The appellant's counsel argued that the Court had earlier recognized the legality of the second marriage by ordering apportionment of pensionary and gratuity benefits between the first wife and the appellant's minor son. However, the Court clarified that the earlier decision did not grant compassionate appointment to the appellant herself and that financial hardship alone could not override statutory requirements.
Further, the Court distinguished the Supreme Court's ruling in Rameshwari Devi v. State of Bihar (2000) 2 SCC 431, which concerned the entitlement of children from a second marriage to family pension and benefits, not the second wife's claim for compassionate appointment. The Court reiterated that while minor children of a second marriage may be entitled to certain benefits, the second wife herself cannot claim compassionate appointment if the second marriage violates the Conduct Rules.
The Court also noted that no permission for second marriage was produced on record, and the appellant failed to comply with the mandatory procedural requirement under Rule 23(1) proviso. Reliance was placed on the Tripura High Court decision in Ghulam Nabi Shergujri v. Union of India (2016) SCC Online Tripura 259, which emphasized the mandatory nature of such permission.
In conclusion, the Court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, holding that compassionate appointment cannot be granted in the absence of compliance with the Conduct Rules, irrespective of personal laws or financial difficulties. The judgment reinforces the strict regulatory framework governing government servants' marriages and benefits arising thereof.
Bottom Line:
Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed by the second wife of a deceased government servant if the second marriage was contracted without obtaining prior permission under the applicable Conduct Rules, even if the second marriage is permissible under personal law.
Statutory provision(s):
Bihar Government Servant's Conduct Rules, 1976, Rule 23(1), Rule 23(2), Rule 23
Martha Murmu v. State of Jharkhand, (Jharkhand)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2974602
