D.G.R.PATNAIK, J. - (1.) CLAIM in these writ applications has been made by the petitioners seeking a direction upon the Respondent -State to make compassionate appointment of the petitioners and also to pay the retiral benefits of the deceased -ancestors of the petitioners. Counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the Respondents in both the cases. In W.P. (S) No. 2791 of 2008, learned Counsel for the Respondent No. 6, would explain that in the second case i.e. W.P. (S) No. 3780 of 2008 farther prayer has been made for commanding upon the Respondents to pay family pension of the deceased -employee to the writ petitioner therein.
(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondent No. 6 in W.P. (S) No. 2791 of 2008 informs at the outset that the dispute is between the legal heirs of the deceased who died in harness on 09.05.2007. The petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 2791 of 2008 happens to be the daughter of the first wife of the deceased. After the death of the mother of the petitioner, the deceased -father had married the mother of the Respondent No. 6 i.e. the writ petitioner in W.P. (S) No. 2791 of 2008 and had got as many as seven children from the second wife, the eldest is the son who had prayed for compassionate appointment. It is further informed that vide another writ application bearing W.P. (S) No. 4010 of 2008, Mehdi Hassan @ Munna, the Respondent No. 6 who was the petitioner therein, has prayed for a direction upon the Respondents to consider the grant of compassionate appointment to her son. The aforesaid writ application was disposed of vide order dated 21.10.2008 directing the concerned authorities of the Respondents to consider the prayer of the petitioner and dispose of the same by a speaking and reasoned order. The representation filed by the Respondent No. 6 pursuant to the order passed in the aforesaid writ application, has not been disposed of as yet and the decision thereon is withheld by the Respondents -authorities only on the ground that another application seeking compassionate appointment, has been filed by the petitioner of the present W.P. (S) No. 2791 of 2008.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondent -State submits that though no order of stay has been passed imposing any restrictions to consider the prayers made by the Respective parties for compassionate appointment but since a second prayer has been received from the petitioner, Chanda Khatoon @ Chanda, the Respondents -authorities have not been able to take any decision on the earlier representation filed by Mehdi Hassan @ Munna, in favour of her son who is the eldest brother of the petitioner, Chanda Khatoon @ Chanda.;