- (1.)The present case, though on facts may be argued to be a sympathetic case, however, there has to be some end to litigation at some stage. Litigants do not have right to keep on approaching the Court repeatedly on the same issue, especially when an earlier litigation had reached the Supreme Court and was unsuccessful.
(2.)The petitioner in the present case seeks compassionate appointment. Compassionate appointment can only be as per an extant policy of the Union or the State or an instrumentality of the Union/State. As per the policy, the petitioner cannot get appointment because the petitioner is the second wife of the deceased employee, Sh.Kameshwar who died in harness.
(3.)Earlier, as the impugned order dated 24.9.2012 of the respondent/authority shows, the petitioner had filed OA No.96/1997 before the Central Administration Tribunal, Patna which was dismissed being devoid of merits and thereafter an SLP bearing no. 9867/1997 in Supreme Court was also dismissed. The petitioner thereafter filed a writ petition in this Court being WP(C) No.10401/2009 wherein appointment was sought for the son of the petitioner and which was dismissed with liberty on 4.8.2009 to approach the department. Another writ petition came to be filed being WP(C) No.8574/2011 and which was disposed of on 8.2.2012 directing the respondent No.1 to dispose of the representations dated 25.5.2010 and 26.8.2010.
The impugned order dated 24.9.2012 has therefore been passed rejecting the representations. The relevant observations in the impugned order reads as under:-

"As directed by the Hon'ble Court/NDLS vide order dt. 08.02.2012 the in instant Writ Petition, I considered the representation dt. 25.5.2010 and 26.8.2010 of Petitioner in the light of Rly Board's letter no.E(NG) 11/91/RC- 1/136 dt. 02.01.1992 on the subject as circulated vide CPO/Calcutta letter No. CPO/CS/SA/POL/PT-VI dated 24.1.1992 which reads as under. It is clarified that in the case of Rly employees dying in harness etc. leaving more than one widow along with children born to the 2nd wife while settlement dues may be shared by both the widows due to Court orders or otherwise on merits of each case appointment on compassionate grounds to the second widow and her children are not to be considered unless the administration has permitted the second marriage..."

It is found that the ex-employee had never taken any permission for second marriage which took place while the first wife was alive.

In view of the observation as mentioned here in above, I have come to the conclusion that subsequent to the death of the earlier wife will not make the eldest son of Petitioner, Sri Ashish Kumar Sinha eligible for compassionate appointment. Thus the case of Sri. Ashish Kumar Sinha for compassionate ground appointed is not tenable".