- (1.) HEARD counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE present writ application has been listed today on I.A. No. 5411/13 preferred by the private respondent i.e. respondent no. 5 with averments that the Title Appeal No. 15/11 preferred by her, has been allowed by judgment dated 17th July 2012. Respondent No. 5 had earlier instituted a Title Suit No. 7/08 with prayers that she be declared as legally wedded wife of late Shaid Marandi; that she being the widow is also entitled to all the benefits of a Government Servant after his death along with second dependent (present petitioner); that the dependent -second party i.e. the present petitioner cannot claim the benefits of late Shaid Marandi; that on such adjudication, the plaintiff be allowed adequate service in place of Shaid Marandi, the amount of pension, provident fund dues of late Shaid Marandi and all the benefits of a Government Servant which these legal heirs of the deceased Government employee is entitled. The said suit was however dismissed on contest by judgment and decree dated 30th June 2011 and 30th July 2011 respectively by the Court of Sub -Judge -I, Sahebganj. However, the Title Appeal No. 15/11 has been allowed in favour of the respondent no. 5 by judgment dated 17th July 2012. Therefore, the official respondents i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Sahebganj be directed to grant her compassionate appointment and to pay the post retirement benefits such as provident fund dues and other arrears with statutory interest thereon.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner however submits that by the judgment passed in Title Appeal No. 15/11, the respondent no. 5/plaintiff -appellant was held to be the legally wedded second wife of late Shaid Marandi and she is entitled to the benefits, as accrued after the death of her husband late Shaid Marandi, including her step son i.e. the present petitioner. Both are entitled to the amount of pension, PPF and other retiral benefits being the legal heirs of the deceased Shaid Marandi. It is the contention of the petitioner that even the Appellate Court did not pass the decree in relation to the claim of the plaintiff (respondent no. 5) for grant of compassionate appointment in lieu of the deceased employee Shaid Marandi. He also submits by relying upon Annexure -4 to the writ application that even in the representation made on her behalf, she had only sought for death -cum -retiral benefits and no claim for compassionate appointment was made. He also submits that the respondent no. 5 is overage by now.;