- (1.) THE present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs: - (i) an appropriate writ/order/direction, in the nature of mandamus, commanding the respondents concerned to show -cause as to how and under what authority the concerned respondents have withheld the gratuity, pension etc., payable to this petitioner on account of death of her husband Bhism Nayak, who died -in -harness on 3.5.2001 and was employed under the concerned respondents; (ii) a further writ/order/direction in the nature of mandamus, commanding upon the concerned respondents to immediately and forthwith release all the legally payable dues to this petitioner, who is the wife of Late Bhism Nayak, who died -in -harness on 3.5.2001. (iii) a further writ/order/direction, directing the concerned respondents to appoint the eldest son of Bhism Nayak, who died in harness on 3.5.2001 in the department of the respondents on compassionate ground. In the counter -affidavit at paragraph -6, it has been admitted that Rs. 1,26,247/ - has been paid towards provisional pension, group insurance and leave encashment and the receipt is also annexed.
(2.) THE counsel for the petitioner also admits that under these three heads the aforesaid amount has already been paid and received by the petitioner. In paragraph -7, they have also submitted that so far as pension and final gratuity is concerned the same was sent to the Accountant General letter No. 22 dated 8.3.2006 and thus the same still remains pending for more than 2% years but these amounts has not yet been collected. The respondents are accordingly directed to pay the admitted dues towards final gratuity and pension, if already not paid.
(3.) THERE is some dispute with regard to the second prayer for compassionate appointment. It has been alleged that the deceased employee had two wives. As regard the second prayer there is inter se dispute with regard to the claim since it is stated that there were two wives of the deceased employee and the same cannot be adjudicated in this writ petition. However, the respondents can consider it on its own merits in accordance with law. ;