MARTHA MURMU vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

(2026: JHHC:26337-DB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 414 of 2026
Martha Murmu, wife of Late Barnawas Maltu, aged about 39 years,
resident of Village- Borio Santhali, P.O. & P.S.- Borio, District-
Sahebgunj. ... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand.
2. The Deputy Commissioner-cum- President, District Compassionate
Committee, Sahebgunj at Collectorate building, Sahebganj, P.O and
P.S Sahebgunj, District Sahebgunj.
3. District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sahebganj P.O and P.S Sahebgunj,
District Sahebgunj.
4. Block Development Officer, Borio Sahebgunj, P.O P.S. District
Sahebganj. … ... Respondents
------
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR
------
For the Appellant : Ms Kanchan Lata, Advocate
For the Resp-State : Md Zaid Imam, AC to SC-VII
-----
03 /Dated: 01.09.2026

1. Heard Ms Kanchan Lata, learned counsel for the appellant and Md
Zaid Imam, learned AC to SC-VII, for the respondents.
2. This appeal challenges the learned Single Judge’s order dated
02.07.2026 dismissing the appellant’s W.P.(S) No. 3994 of 2026 seeking
compassionate appointment.
3. Ms Kanchan Lata submitted that the learned Single Judge has
ignored the proviso to Rule 23(1) of the Bihar Government Servant’s
Conduct Rules, 1976 (said Rules) as applicable in the State of Jharkhand.
She submitted that the learned Single Judge also ignored the fact that the
appellant and her late husband were members of the Santhali Tribe and,
according to the customary law applicable to them, a second marriage was
permissible. She submitted that in the earlier round of litigation, the
Division Bench of this Court had ordered apportionment of certain
pensionary and gratuity benefits between the first wife and the appellant’s
minor son. She contends that from this, it was evident that the legality of
1

(2026: JHHC:26337-DB)
the marriage between the deceased employee and the appellant was
accepted by this Court.

4. Ms Kanchan Lata submitted that the appellant's financial position is
quite dire. She submitted that though the son has been given benefits, the
same are only on paper and actual financial benefits have not yet reached
the son.
5. Ms Kanchan Lata relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in Rameshwari Devi Vs. State of Bihar and others (2000) 2 SCC
431 to support her contentions.
6. Ms Kanchan Lata submitted that for all the above reasons, the
impugned order may be interfered with and a suitable direction be issued
to the respondents for granting compassionate appointment to the
appellant.
7. Md Zaid Imam, learned counsel for the respondents, defended the
impugned order on the basis of the reasoning reflected therein. He
submitted that proviso to Rule 23(1) of the said Rules requires specific
permission before any second marriage is contracted. He submitted that no
such permission was granted in the present case. He relied on the decision
of Ghulam Nabi Shergujri Vs. The United of India & Anr ., 2016 SCC
OnLine Tripura 259 to support his contentions that such a permission
was mandatory.
8. Mr Zaid Imam, therefore, submitted that this appeal may be
dismissed.
9. The rival contentions now fall for our determination.
2

(2026: JHHC:26337-DB)
10. In this case, Late Barnawas Maltu, who was working as Panchayat
Sewak, died in harness on 11.07.2011. The appellant claims to be the
second wife of Barnawas Maltu.
11. The respondents rejected her application for compassionate
appointment and retiral benefits for herself and her son. Therefore, she
instituted a petition before this Court. The first wife, Sarojani Kisku, also
instituted a petition claiming similar benefits. Both these petitions were
disposed of by order dated 13.09.2017.
12. Then Sarojini Kisku, the first wife, filed L.P.A. No. 613 of 2017. In
th
this appeal, the present appellant was impleaded as 6 respondent. The
appellate Court disposed of the appeal by judgment and order dated
28.02.2019 by inter alia modifying the learned Single Judge’s order and
holding that the first wife and the minor son of the second wife, i.e. the
appellant herein, were entitled to the distribution of the gratuity amongst
themselves. However, no such relief was granted to the present appellant,
though directions were issued to reconsider the case of both wives for
compassionate appointment. Upon reconsideration, the present appellant’s
case for compassionate appointment was denied.
13. The present appellant, therefore, instituted W.P.(S) No. 3994 of
2026 to challenge the decision dated 28.07.2021 by which she was denied
compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned
order dated 02.07.2026, has dismissed the said W.P.(S) No. 3994 of 2024
and, hence, this appeal.
14. Rule 23 of the Bihar Government Servant’s Conduct Rules, 1976,
which is stated to be applicable to the State of Jharkhand, reads as follows:
-
3

(2026: JHHC:26337-DB)
“23. Restrictions regarding marriages. – (1) No Government
servant shall enter into, or contract, a marriage with a person
having a spouse living; and
(2) No Government servant, having a spouse living shall enter
into, or contract a marriage with any person :
Provided that Government may permit a Government servant
to enter into or contract, any such marriage as is referred to in
clause (1) or clause (2) if it is satisfied that :-
(a) such marriage is permissible under the personal law
applicable to such Government servant and the other party to the
marriage; and
(b) there are other grounds for so doing.
(3) A Government servant who has married or marries a person
other than of Indian Nationality shall forthwith intimate the fact to
the Government.”
15. In this case, no permission is produced on record to indicate that
Barnawas Maltu, while in service, obtained any permission to enter into
the contract of second marriage with the appellant. The learned Single
Judge has correctly held that in the absence of any such permission, the
present appellant cannot insist upon compassionate appointment based
upon her second marriage while the marriage between Barnawas Maltu
and his first wife was subsisting. The view taken by the learned Single
Judge is quite consistent with the provisions of Rule 23 quoted above and
also with the decision in Sanjeev Kumar Yadav Vs State of Bihar , 2002
(2) PLJR 253 .
16. The argument about the customs of the Santhali Tribe is also not
directly relevant in this matter because there is nothing on record to show
that the marriage with the appellant was contracted after obtaining
permission under the proviso to Rule 23 (2) of the Conduct Rules. Such
permission is necessary even to a case where the second marriage is
permissible under the personal law applicable to such Government servant
and the other party to the marriage.
4

(2026: JHHC:26337-DB)
17. The decision in Rameshwari Devi ( supra ) cannot assist the
appellant herein. There, the issue was whether the children of the second
marriage contracted by the deceased employee during the subsistence of
the first wife would be entitled to family pension and other retiral benefits.
In that context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering the
provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, which applied in the facts of the
said case, held that though the marriage itself was void, the children of
such a void marriage could never be regarded as illegitimate. Accordingly,
the finding of the High Court holding the minor children of the second
marriage entitled to certain retiral benefits was not interfered with.
18. In this context, the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered the Conduct
Rules, which were similar to the Conduct Rules quoted above, and held
that if the second marriage violated the Conduct Rules, disciplinary action
could have been taken against the employee while in service. However, the
claim of the minor children of such a marriage, who are held to be
legitimate under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, for certain retiral benefits
could not be denied. The Court also noted that the case before it was not a
sham marriage because it was amply established by oral and documentary
evidence.
19. In the present case, the appellant’s minor son has been given certain
benefits. In the case before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that
the wife was not entitled to any benefits; the position of minor children
was different, given the provisions in the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956, which
was found applicable to the facts of the said case. Therefore, based upon
Rameshwari Devi ( Supra ) , no relief can be granted to the appellant herein.
5

(2026: JHHC:26337-DB)
20. Similarly, based upon Ms Kanchan Lata’s submissions that the
appellant’s financial situation is dire, we cannot direct compassionate
appointment.
21. We detect no error in the view taken by the learned Single Judge.
22. For all the above reasons, we find no good grounds to interfere with
the impugned order and consequently, dismiss this appeal without any
order for costs.

(M.S. Sonak, C.J.)

(Rajesh Shankar, J.)
September 01, 2026
Ranjeet / R.Kr.
NAFR
Uploaded on 03.09.2026


6