- (1.) The petitioner has approached this Court seeking quashing of order dated 11.07.2012 and for grant of pensionary benefits of her husband. The husband of the petitioner was appointed on 22.02.1988 as Path Mazdoor (Road Labour) with the respondent-Road Construction Department. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on 20.03.2004 and thereafter, the petitioner made several representations for grant of the retiral benefits. On 12.02.2009, the petitioner made a representation for grant of appointment to her son on compassionate ground. By the impugned order dated 11.07.2012, the claim of the petitioner seeking appointment for her son on compassionate ground has been rejected.
(2.) A counter-affidavit has been filed contending that, since the husband of the petitioner was illegally appointed, compassionate appointment to her son cannot be granted. In the counter-affidavit, it is thus stated. 9. That it is stated that the answering respondent submitted that the deceased husband of the petitioner working as temporary path mazdoor/road labour and the petitioner is not entitled for family pension. 10. That it is stated that the answering respondent submitted that the husband of the petitioner was temporary labour due to that reason the petitioner is not entitled for gratuity and earned leave. 11. That it is stated that the answering respondents submitted that the authority was not responsible for delayed payment of provident fund amount Rs. 52,525/- and group insurance scheme amount Rs. 34,646/- and paid that amount with interest on 20.03.2012 and the petitioner was submitted the document on 20.12.2011 before the authority and the concerned authority was paid the amount on 20.03.2012 without any delay. The petitioner was not entitled for any interest regarding delayed payment. ............................... 13. That it is stated that the answering respondents submitted that the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by the authority passed reasoned order vide office order No. 534 dated 11.07.2012 and intimate the petitioner.
(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that, though the husband of the petitioner continued in service for more than 16 years, after his death the claim of the petitioner is sought to be denied on the ground that the appointment of the husband of the petitioner was illegal. He has further submitted that, the respondents have granted retiral benefits on account of her husband and therefore, it is not open to the respondents to contend that initial appointment of the husband of the petitioner was illegal and therefore, her son cannot be granted appointment on compassionate ground.;