- (1.) HEARD Sri S.R.Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Ashok Bhagnagar learned counsel for the respondent no.3 and the learned standing counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2.
(2.) THE petitioner's husband Ram Kumar was an employee on the post of Lekhpal in the Revenue Department who died while in service on 27.1.2012. Consequent upon the death of the petitioner's husband,she filed a writ petition before this Court claiming certain benefit by making the following prayer: "(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated10.7.2012 passed by the respondent no.2 (contained as Annexure No.6 to this writ petition); (ii) issue a writ,order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2to release the dues which are liable to be payable due to death of her husband and also appoint the petitioner on the basis of compassionate ground under Dying in Harness Rules,1974. (iii)issue such writ,orders or directions as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case." By means of the impugned order dated 10.7.2012, the District Magistrate while considering the grievance has passed a detailed order which indicates that the pensionary benefit, as well as consideration for appointment under Dying in Harness Rules,1974 of the legal heirs of late Ram Kumar are deferred due to on going dispute between the two wives namely Smt.Anita Devi (petitioner) and Smt. Meena Devi who claims to be the legal heir of late Ram Kumar being the second legally wedded wife after grant of divorce by the competent court.
(3.) IT may be relevant to note that Smt. Anita Devi was the first wife of late Ram Kumar who was divorced under a decree passed in Family Court Case No.464 of 2003 on 7.3.2009. The aforesaid decree of the Family Court was challenged in the First Appeal No.225 of 2009 before this Court and was finally dismissed by order dated 14.8.2012.The operative part of the order dated 14.8.2012 is re -produced below: "Here,the learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no dispute with regard to the estate left by the deceased in these proceedings and the deceased has left no heir. In this factual scenario, in our view only the appeal shall abate. The appellant has not taken any steps to substitute heir of the deceased respondent,if any, therefore,the appeal abates. In the result, the appeal is dismissed as abated." ;