URSILA REETA TIRKI BALMIKI Vs. THE GENERAL MANAGER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Since pleadings are complete, therefore, the matter is heard finally.

(2.) As per the petitioner, she is challenging the order dated 17.05.2016 whereby her claim for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent assigning the reason therein that in the service record, her name is not recorded as wife of the deceased employee. The order also contains that in a proceeding pending before the civil Court for seeking Succession Certificate, an affidavit had been filed by the petitioner stating that the deceased employee, namely Late Vijay Ram Balmiki got married on 05.06.2008, whereas on 05.02.2012, the said employee verified the service record and specific column of the service record regarding his marital status, he has stated that he was unmarried. Therefore, the petitioner cannot be considered to be the wife of the deceased employee and compassionate appointment cannot be granted.

(3.) The said order has been assailed by the petitioner mainly on the ground that the reason assigned in the order cannot be said to be valid and legal because in a proceeding pending before the civil Court, the Court has granted Succession Certificate in favour of the petitioner and also directed to release the amount of Rs. 75,000/- relating to the retiral dues of the deceased employee as the petitioner and son of the deceased employee were considered to be successors of first category of the deceased employee.