- (1.) HEARD the counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE petitioner is challenging the order as contained in the letter dated 24/ 25.3.2006 whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent -Management on the ground that he is the son of the second wife of the deceased employee. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on the decision of the Allahabad High Court. I have perused the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court wherein it is held that the son of the second wife of the deceased employee, having no right in the property, cannot claim compassionate appointment.
(3.) WITH due respect, I am not in agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge of the Allahabad High Court because, on the contrary, a Division Bench of the Patna High Court, in a decision reported in 1998 PLJR 769, has held that the son of the second wife of a deceased employee can claim compassionate appointment. This court has, therefore, no option but to follow the view taken by the Division Bench of this court.;