- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent-C.C.L. and the private respondent no. 3.
(2.) This Court vide its order dated 23.4.2014 in the present writ application directed the respondent-C.C.L. to conduct a proper inquiry in the matter and submit its finding along with its report. The reason for directing so are evident from the said order itself, which is being quoted herein below for better appreciation:- "The instant controversy needs to be inquired at the first instance by the respondent-Employer through its vigilance department. The reason for directing the respondents-CCL to do so is as follows:- In the present writ application, the writ petitioner Vishwanath Nonia claims himself to be the son of the deceased employee Late Nathuni Nonia and has sought for appointment on compassionate ground and also claimed the death cum retirement benefits on the death of said employee on 7.1.2008. He also has stated that the widow of the deceased employee namely Smt. Lachhmania Kamin had died on 23.11.2008 itself. An intervention application being I.A. No. 1832 of 2014 has been preferred by one another lady namely Laxmaniya Kamin claiming herself to be the wife of the deceased employee Late Nathuni Nonia and also claiming the petitioner to be her son. She has stated that the petitioner had in an invidious manner declared that his mother is dead while the intervenor, Laxmaniya Kamin i.e. mother of the present petitioner and wife of the deceased employee is very much alive. It is also stated that the intervenor had filed a writ petition being W.P.S. No. 481 of 2014 for seeking monetary compensation and death cum retirement dues on account of service of her late husband Late Nathuni Nonia, which was disposed of on 17.2.2014. In the said judgment, which is at Annexure-6 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner, the said Laxmaniya Kamin had claimed that she was shown as wife in the service book of the deceased employee and had also received gratuity amount. The writ petition was disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh representation with necessary facts and documents before the General Manager, Dhori Area, Bokaro who in turn was directed to consider the same in accordance with law after due verification of the relevant records of the deceased employee and take a decision on the claim of Provident Fund, Pension, Life Cover Scheme and monetary benefits as also any other service dues by passing a reasoned order within a stipulated period. The writ petitioner in response to the intervention application has annexed the death certificate issued by one Dr. Meena Birua on 23.11.2008 as per which Smt. Lachhmania Kamin aged 59 years designation P/R died on 23.11.2008 at 3.55 a.m. On the other hand learned counsel for the intervenor has submitted that the intervenor is the biological mother of the present petitioner and the lady who is said to have died on 23.11.2008 was not the legally married wife of the deceased employee, Late Nathuni Nonia. He also submitted that the death certificate does not disclose the name of the deceased employee as the husband of the deceased lady. The aforesaid state of facts, therefore give reason of grave doubt about the identity of the parties as the rightful claimant for the admissible death cum retirement dues/compassionate appointment etc in lieu of the deceased employee Nathuni Nonia. Therefore, at the first instance, it is proper to direct the respondent-C.C.L. to conduct a proper inquiry in the matter and submit the findings and the report before this Court, thereafter within a period of 8 weeks. Both the petitioner and the intervenor are directed to the cooperate in the said inquiry. It is also indicated that during the pendency of the said inquiry, none of the admissible death cum retirement dues of the deceased employee would be disbursed in favour of either of the parties. Let the writ petition appear under the same heading after 8 weeks. Let a copy of this order be handed over the counsel for the respondent-CCL".
(3.) The respondent-C.C.L. has submitted its report in a sealed cover which was opened in the Court on 25.6.2014 and on the request of learned counsel for the parties i.e. petitioner, intervenor/newly added respondent no. 3 and the respondent-C.C.L., they were allowed to inspect the same, thereafter they were also allowed to obtain the copies of the said report for offering their response in the matter. The petitioner as well as the private respondents, both have filed response by way of supplementary affidavit and rejoinder respectively. Today submissions have been advanced on behalf of the respective parties on the said report.;