- (1.) The instant Letters Patent Appeal has been preferred against the judgment/ order dated 15.05.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No.3538 of 2013, whereby the aforesaid writ application was disposed of with the certain directions given therein.
(2.) The case of the appellants in the aforesaid writ application, was that the appellant (Asha Devi) was married to Ram Khelawan Pahalwan (since dead) on 12.04.1991, and late Ram Khelawan Pahalwan died in harness on 07.02.2012 while working on the post of Security Guard in Central Electric Store, Deoghar and he was in the services of respondent Nos.1 to 4; that her late husband suffered brain haemorrhage and was under medical treatment till his demise on 07.02.2012; that the appellant looked after him and nursed him and borrowed money to meet the expenses of his treatment; that the deceased is survived by the appellant, her daughter, Priyanka Kumari and two minor sons namely, Santosh Kumar and Suraj Kumar respectively (appellant Nos.2 to 4); that her late husband had executed a registered Will in her favour for which, Probate Case No.05 of 2012 was filed and is pending in the court below, in which respondent Nos.5 and 6 have been arrayed as respondent Nos.1 and 2 i.e. Janki Devi, first wife of late Ram Khelawan Panhalwan and Choudhary Charan Yadav, son of late Ram Khelawan Pahalwan respectively; that the respondent No.3 Phool Kumari Devi, married daughter of late Ram Khelawan Pahalwan has entered her appearance. That the respondent No.5, who is the first wife and respondent No.6, the son and her daughter Phool Kumari Devi, had deserted her late husband prior to the marriage of the appellant; that the appellant No.2 has attained the age of majority but still unmarried; that Janki Devi, first wife of the deceased had filed a Maintenance Case under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C, wherein maintenance of Rs.800/- per month was allowed to her, against which, her late husband had filed Criminal Revision No.802 of 2009, whereby the maintenance amount was fixed at Rs.600/- per month by order dated 04.04.2011 and in the said revision, it has been admitted that her late husband has been looked after by the present appellant. It is averred that earlier Janki Devi had filed W.P. (S) No.7446 of 2012 on 11.12.2012 but the appellants were not made party in the aforesaid writ and after passing of the order in the said writ the appellant had filed review application, which was dismissed giving liberty to the appellant to approach before the appropriate forum for redressal of the grievances. It is stated that appellant No.2 (Priyanka Kumari) had filed an application for compassionate appointment before the Executive Engineer, Central Electric Store, Daburgram, Deoghar on 20.05.2013 and the appellant Nos.1 and 2 had also filed representation on 17.06.2013 before the respondent Nos.1 to 4 for the payment of death-cum retiral benefits, but no of-let was paid by the respondents, whereupon the appellants filed the aforesaid writ application by which the impugned order was passed.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the impugned order inter alia on the grounds that the learned Single Judge did not consider that a Probate Case was pending between the parties for the registered Will, which ought to have been respected by the respondents; that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 had also filed W.P.(S) No.5423 of 2013 for quashing the order contained in memo No.4662 dated 17.08.2013, passed i acres n pursuance to the order dated 08.01.2013 in W.P.(S) No.7446 of 2013 for payment of the death-cum-retiral dues and the appointment of the respondent No.6 on compassionate ground; that the learned Single Judge ought to have considered that the respondent Nos.5 and 6 were not cooperating in the Probate Case by not appearing in the court below; that the learned Single Judge failed to consider that the respondent No.6 i.e. the petitioner No.2 had filed W.P.(S) No.5423 of 2013, and was being considered for compassionate appointment, and respondent Nos.5 and 6 have fixed source of income whereas the appellant No.1, who has a unmarried daughter and two minor children, should have been granted family pension + Rs.5 lakhs + 50% of the total retiral benefits in view of the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellant on 20.03.2014; that the learned Single Judge did not take into account that if death-cum-retiral benefits are disbursed to the respondent Nos.5 and 6 then the appellant shall suffer irreparable loss and will be on the streets leading a life of beggary and destitution and the order should have been passed in view the proposal given by the appellant in the supplementary affidavit.;