RENU THAPA Vs. NORTH EASTERN ELECTRIC POWER CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. A.S. Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. V.K. Jindal, learned Senior counsel, assisted by Mr. S. Dey, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 & 2. None appears for respondent Nos. 3, 4 & 5 inspite of proper service of notice of the present writ petition to them. The petitioner is the widow of (L) Pramod Kumar Thapa who was serving as Light Vehicle Driver (SG) under the respondent No. 1 and died on 27.07.2009 at Bethany Hospital, Shillong. The respondent No. 3 is the first wife of (L) Pramod Kumar Thapa. On the death of (L) Pramod Kumar Thapa, a dispute between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 had been arisen in the matter of sharing the service benefits of the deceased (L) Pramod Kumar Thapa. But on the intervention of common friends as well as the well wishers, the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 had amicably settled the dispute outside the Court and reduced the terms of settlement into a Deed of Settlement dated 14.03.2012 wherein, it is provided that:

(2.) After the execution of the said Deed of Settlement dated 14.03.2012, the petitioner and respondent No. 3 had submitted the terms of settlement to the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 who duly accepted the terms and conditions of the settlement. In pursuance to the said Deed of Settlement dated 14.03.2012, the respondent No. 2 vide Office Order No. 524 dated 31.05.2012 contained in the Memo No. PERS/14/G-19.pt.-II/3839-42 dated 31.05.2012 paid a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs) only being a lump sum financial benefits in lieu of compassionate appointment at the ratio of 50:50 through A/c payee cheque to the petitioner and the respondent No. 3. It is also further stated that the respondent No. 2 vide Office Order No. 541 dated 04.06.2012 released the leave encashment amount to the petitioner and the respondent No. 3 at the ratio of 50:50 and also the other amounts like gratuity also had been released to the petitioner and respondent No. 3 at the ratio of 50:50.

(3.) Regarding the family pension of (L) Pramod Kumar Thapa, pension papers cannot be prepared only because of misunderstanding between the petitioner and respondent No. 3 and also that the pension papers under the law cannot be prepared in the names of two wives. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 are not denying the said fact that the financial benefits of (L) Pramod Kumar Thapa, so far as his service benefits are concerned, except the family pension had already been released by the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to the extent of 50:50 to the petitioner and the respondent No. 3.