KAULESHWAR PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5808 of 2007 to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground in view of death of one Dhaneshwar Prajapati, claiming himself to be the son of the deceased employee. He had also sought direction upon the respondents for payment of his share in death -cum -retiral dues and in the arrears of salary, which are legally payable to the deceased employee. In the said writ petition, the matter relating to the existence of two widows of the deceased employee was also brought to the notice of the Court and that the first wife i.e. widow, Parwa Devi had a son, namely, Ganesh Prajapati.

(2.) AFTER hearing learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the Respondents -State, the matter was disposed of by directing the respondents to dispose of the representation of the petitioner within a period of two months. The operative part of the order is quoted hereunder:

(3.) THIS led to filing of the present writ application by the petitioner. During the pendency of the writ application, the son of the first wife, namely, Ganesh Prajapati born out of wedlock with the deceased employee, Late Dhaneshwar Prajapati, was granted compassionate appointment vide order dated 1st January, 2010. Though that was being sought to be challenged by the petitioner by way of interlocutory application being I.A. No. 3634 of 2011, but learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is now not inclined to the claim for compassionate appointment or challenge to the compassionate appointment of the son of first wife namely Ganesh Prajapati in view of Clause 2(a) contained in the order of appointment, by which he is supposed to maintain the dependent of the deceased employee. However, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that from perusal of Annexure -B to the counter -affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4, which is an application made by said Ganesh Prajapati (son of first wife), it is clear that he himself had consented to proportionate division of the earning of the deceased employee (his father) in the matter of pension and other death cum -retiral -dues and arrears of salary. These facts were in the notice of the official respondents as the application was made on 14th October, 2005, but in spite of that petitioner's claim has been refused vide Annexure 5 vide order dated 18th September, 2008, which is impugned herein. In such circumstances, the respondent should be directed to reconsider the matter after hearing both the parties. He also submits that the dependent of the petitioner including those born out of second wife are also entitled to the share in the immovable and movable properties of the deceased employee.