( 2026:JHHC:19635 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P(S). No. 3994 of 2026 ---- Martha Murmu, W/o Barnawas Maltu, aged about 39 years, Resident of village Borio Santhali, PO & PS-Borio, District Sahebganj .....Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand 2. The Deputy Commissioner-cum- President, District Compassionate Committee, Sahebganj at Collectorate building, Sahebganj, P.O and P.S Sahebganj, District Sahebganj 3. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sahebganj P.O and P.S Sahebgunj, District Sahebganj 4. Block Development Officer, Borio Sahebganj, P.O P.S. District Sahebganj .....Respondents --- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN --- For the Petitioners : Ms. Kanchan Lata, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Zaid Imam, AC to SC-VII --- 02/ Dated: 02.07.2026 1. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for following relief(s)- i. For the issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the decision dated 28.7.2021 taken by District Compassionate committee, Sahebganj presided over by the Deputy Commissioner-cum-President District Committee, Sahebganj, so far as petitioner is concerned at item No.17, vide (Annexure-4), read with order containing Memo No. 316 dated 11.8.2021 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj as contained in Annexure-4/1, whereby and whereunder the claim for "Compassionate appointment" of petitioner has been rejected mechanically in terms of Rule-23(1), ignoring Rule 23(2) proviso (a) of The Jharkhand Government Servants' Conduct Rules 1976 as well as also ignoring the Section 2(2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the law laid-down by this Hon'ble Court in F.A. No. 186 of 2008 (Rajendra Kumar Singh Munda -vs- Mamta Devi.) as also the law laid-down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that " the matters of marriage and divorce, tribal customary laws override the Hindu Marriage Act, as reported in AIR 2001 SC 938 (Dr. Surajmani Stella Kujur - vs- Durga Charan Hansdah), read with the order dated 13.9.2017 passed in W.P. (S) Nos. 3007 with 6633 of 2013 as contained in Annexure-2 of this application; ii) For the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith consider the case of petitioner for grant of Compassionate appointment in terms of order dated 13.9.2017 passed in W.P. (S) Nos. 3007 with 6633 of 2013 as contained in Annexure-2 read with the order dated ( 2026:JHHC:19635 ) 28/2/19 passed by Hon'ble Division Bench (Annexure-3 herein), as the petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste "Santhal" and in terms of Section-2 (2) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, she is legally married 2nd wife of deceased employee and after death of her husband she has been deserted and facing hardships along with her son, who were/is dependent of deceased employee and starving since after death of her husband on 11.07.2011 for no fault on her part, in the facts and circumstances of this case. 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that though in customary law, the second wife is having equal right and even in the service excerpt of the deceased employee, the name of this petitioner who is the second wife is mentioned. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that when the first wife deserted the deceased employee, it was the petitioner who became whole and sole supporter of the deceased employee. She further referred the order passed by the co-ordinate bench in the case of first wife namely Smt. Sarojini Kisku, wherein this petitioner was respondent no. 6. 4. The said writ application was disposed of by this Court vide its order dated 13.09.2017 wherein at para-14, the co-ordinate bench of this Court has held as under :- “So far as the matter relating to grant of appointment on compassionate ground is concerned, the petitioner in both the writ applications are directed to file their respective representations in the prescribed format before the competent authority, for appointment on compassionate ground, who will take the decision in the matter in accordance with law at the earliest and preferably within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further draws attention of this Court towards order passed in LPA No. 613 of 2017, wherein the division bench vide their order dated 28.02.2019 has held at para- 15 as under:- “ As noticed herein above the first wife and the minor son from the second wife of the deceased employee are the surviving Class-I legal heirs of the deceased ( 2026:JHHC:19635 ) employee, who accordingly to section 8 of the Hindi Succession Act shall be entitled for their respective share in the property of the deceased employee. Accordingly, the direction Issued by the learned writ Court in paragraph no. 13 of the impugned order dated 13.09.2017 is modified to the above extent”. 6. Relying upon those orders filed by the first wife, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner submits that even by filing an application by the first wife, she did not get any relief and the petitioner as per the tribal law is also legally wedded wife of the deceased employee namely Barnawas Maltu. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated that since the petitioner is a Santhali tribal and legally wedded second wife and as per the Santhal law, she is having equal right in every field like the first wife, therefore compassionate appointment should have been given to this petitioner. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that though counter- affidavit has not been filed, however he relies upon the impugned order which is at Annexure-4 Page no. 50-51. 8. From bare perusal of impugned order it clearly transpires that under Bihar Jharkhand Government Conduct Employee Rule 1978 in section 23, it is mentioned that the Government servant cannot have a second wife during the lifetime of the first wife and if at all any government servant or any person consummate a marriage that shall not be legal. 9. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner belongs to a Santhali tribe and there is a proviso to Section 23-I of the Conduct Rules wherein it has been provided that with a permission of competent authority, the employee can have a second wife. 10. However, from bare perusal of the impugned order, it is evidently clear that the petitioner herein failed to produce any documents showing to that effect. ( 2026:JHHC:19635 ) 11. Having regard to the aforesaid discussion, no relief can be granted to this petitioner. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) Abha/- 02.07.2026