(1.) Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kr. Das, learned counsel for the respondents-C.C.L.
(2.) The petitioner has preferred the writ petition for quashing the letter dated 08.05.2012 whereby the application for the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected.
(3.) Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is mother-in-law of the petitioner who was appointed as piece rated workman after death of her husband. The mother-in-law of the petitioner was appointed in respondent company on 18.02.1988 after death of her husband and she died in harness while she was on duty on 13.11.2010. She was having four daughters and in the service book daughter namely Samundri Kumari was nominated by the deceased employee Bichhni Devi as her nominee to receive retiral benefits. Samundri Kumari was married with this petitioner and after the marriage the petitioner and Samundri Kumari stayed with the deceased employee in her residence as the petitioner was unemployed and dependent on her. Learned counsel further submits that will was executed on 13.07.2009 in favour of wife of the petitioner in which the name of the petitioner figures as husband of the Samundri Kumari. Referring to the will, he submits that the deceased employee has stated therein that the daughter Samundri Kumari is looking after her and on the basis of that he submits that the petitioner was also residing with his wife at residence of the deceased employee. He submits that the impugned order has been passed only on the ground that the petitioner's name has not mentioned in the service book of the deceased.