SARASWATI PANDEY Vs. SECRETARY STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN certain situations in life a person does not envision the disturbing future which ultimately finds its roots embedded in the incidents of the past and struggle begins in the future canvass, sometimes a smooth one and some other time creating a rough weather trying to chain and tie a person like an octopus disallowing the person to get away, even an inch, from the bizarre episode of the past. To elaborate : the past haunts like a ghost but there is no magic or any kind of sorcery to emerge like a resplendent light to enlighten the already blinded future. Thus, the conduct becomes a governing and pivotal fulcrum.

(2.) FILTERING unnecessary details the facts which are necessitous to be stated are thus :-The petitioner was the wife of late Ram Khilawan Pandey who was working in the Government Engineering College, Rewa. Said Ram Khilawan met with an accident in the month of June, 1997 and breathed his last. After his death the petitioner claiming to be his widow approached the authorities for extending her the benefit of retiral dues but all her prayers fell into deaf years. In this factual backdrop it is contended that non-consideration of the case by the respondents for the purpose of grant of retiral benefits is sensitively vulnerable and does not have the sanction of law.

(3.) A counter affidavit has been filed by the answering respondents contending, inter alia that the records available with the respondents show that successor of the deceased R. K. Pandey are Smt. Saraswati Pandey, Ram Narayan Pandey, Smt. Sukhrajiya Pandey and Mani Pandey. It has been putforth that Smt. Sukhrajiya Pandey has described herself as the second wife of the deceased. It is also setforth that the respondents have been apprised that the petitioner had taken divorce from the deceased as a consequence of which he had asked for change of nomination. The copy of the said application and documents regarding divorce have been brought on record as Annexure R-2. In this backdrop, it is pleaded that no decision has been taken for grant of retiral dues including provident fund.