Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is seeking compassionate appointment on the death of her husband, Late Surydeo Ram, Constable, who is said to have died in harness on 30th December, 2010.
(2.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, she is eligible and otherwise entitled for compassionate appointment in terms of the policy decision of the State Government contained in resolution dated 5th October, 1991. The family certificate issued by the competent authority also shows that the petitioner is the widow of the deceased. According to the petitioner, she had made an application before the respondents well within the time which is contained at Annexure -4. However, the respondents have not taken any decision in the matter. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that initially the elder son of the deceased employee, namely, Ajay Paswan had made an application for compassionate appointment and his case was being considered and processed. In the meantime, the petitioner has appeared and staked her claim for compassionate appointment on the ground that she is the widow of the deceased employee. Whether the petitioner is a widow or not is subject to strict proof. In such circumstances, when rival claims have been made by different parties claiming as son and widow of the deceased employee, the petitioner has not been able to take a decision.
(3.) ACCORDING to the petitioner, however, as per the circular annexed as Annexure -2 issued in the year 1991, the widow is to be granted preference in the matter of compassionate appointment ahead of the son. The petitioner has apprehension that if the other person, Ajay Paswan, who is step son of the deceased employee is appointed, he may not take care of the family of the deceased including the petitioner.;