Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:111076 Court No. - 5 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 3496 of 2020 Petitioner :- Sabbo Respondent :- State Of U.P. And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Singh,Shivam Dwivedi,Shubham Dwivedi Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Suresh C. Dwivedi Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J. This writ petition is pending for last more than five years. The petitioner has approached this Court and it is being posted in top 10 cases of listing. In pursuance of an order passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation, petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment being legally second wife of deceased employee was considered and a direction was passed to decide the claim of petitioner, however, it was rejected by concerned respondent, therefore, present petition was filed to challenge the impugned order. Sri Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner submits that despite petitioner being legally second wife of deceased employee, her claim was wrongly rejected. Sri Arun Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.3 on basis of counter affidavit submits that there is a dispute whether petitioner is legally wedded second wife of deceased or not, since one another lady (Hema Devi) has also claimed in same capacity and he refers paragraph No.9 of counter affidavit which is reproduced hereinafter :- "That, in the reply to the contents of the paragraph No.11 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner is the 3rd wife of Late Sushil Kumar, as one Hema Devi has also filed an application, seeking compassionate appointment as the legally wedded wife of Late Sushil Kumar." Learned counsel for petitioner refers following paragraph No. 6 of rejoinder affidavit :- "That the contents of paragraph no.6 and 7 of the counter affidavit are not admitted as stated hence denied and in reply thereto it is to be stated that the factum of marriage ascerted by the petitioner has not been denuiedd and further more factum of residence of deceased employee (husband of petitioner) alongwith petitioner at 41/2 Kashiram Colony Mehdauri Teliyarganj Prayagraj since 6.12.2014 has not been nominee in the investment policy has also not been denied by the respondent. As such it stand admitted upon the respondents that petitioner was married with deceased employee on 6.12.2014 and since then deceased employee was living alongwith petitioner at 41/2 Kashiram Colony Mehdauri Teliyarganj Prayagraj and further that petitioner was mentioned as nominee in investment policy obtained by deceased employee. So far as referring about one Hema Devi as wife of deceased employee is concerned, in reply thereto it is stated that at the time of death of deceased employee factum of marriage of petitioner with deceased employee has been admitted by respondents and more over name of petitioner as wife is also appearing in the certificate issued from the office of Tehsildar, as referred in the impugned order itself which clearly indicates that at the time of death of deceased employee petitioner was legally wedded wife of deceased employee. In this view of the matter reference of Hema Devi as wife of deceased employee is illegal because Government employee can no have more than one living wife during service period. If Hema Devi is going to be treated as widow of deceased employee then services of deceased employee should had been terminated at that moment. As such reference of Hema Devi as wife can not invalidate the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment." In aforesaid circumstances, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for respondent that once there is a serious dispute whether petitioner is legally wedded wife or not. Claim of either party cannot be accepted and parties are relegated to Civil Court to crystalize respective claim. It is not under dispute that deceased was survived by his son Aditya Kumar (born from his first wife, presently a minor boy). In aforesaid circumstances, without interfering with impugned order, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to crystalize her claim of wife of deceased employee before a competent civil Court. On basis of it's outcome, she may again approach the concerned respondent. Order Date :- 11.7.2025 P. Pandey Digitally signed by :- PUSHPENDRA PANDEY High Court of Judicature at Allahabad