Smt. Rekha Mishra vs State Of Chhattisgarh

The present Writ Petition has been filed seeking direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner No.1 for compassionate

appointment and also for grant of pensionary benefits.

The facts of the case in brief is that one Anand Mishra was working with the Educational Department of the respondent/State and died in harness

on 21/09/2014. Subsequent to his death, there were a dispute arose between two ladies, one Smt. Surekha Mishra and other is Smt. Rekha Mishra.

The deceased employee is said to have had one daughter whereas Smt. Rekha Mishra â€" the petitioner No.1 with the deceased employee had two

sons. There was a dispute in respect of the claim of death-cum-retial dues and the case for succession was filed which finally stood adjudicated in two

civil revisions i.e. Civil Revision Nos. 172/2017 and 181/2017 vide a common judgment dated 12/02/2018. Vide the said judgment the High Court has

held that the two childrens born from the petitioner No.1, Smt.Surekha Mishra â€" the respondent No.3 in the present Writ Petition, the childrens born

from Smt. Surenkha Mishra and the mother of the deceased employee are all entitled for two succession claim receivable on the death of deceased

employee. The petitioner No.1 was not granted any relief and the distribution of share was to be made in equal proportion.

The prayer of the petitioner is that the petitioner No.1 may be considered for compassionate appointment and for pensionary benefits.

On a specific enquiry being put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether there is any dispute that the respondent No.3 was not the first

wife of the deceased employee he fairly accepted that, admittedly she was the first wife but she was not living with the deceased employee on the

date of his death and the relationship between the two were not cordial and infact the deceased employee was staying with the present petitioner and

childrens.

Since there is no dispute so far as the fact that the respondent No.3 is the widow and the first wife of the deceased employee and there is no

specific documents to show that the marriage between the two had been dissolved from any competent court of law. The respondent No.3 would

have to be considered as the wife of the deceased employee and accordingly she would be the first person to get the claim for compassionate

appointment which the respondent department has also granted in this case. The order of appointment of the respondent No.3 is not under challenge.

Even otherwise, if we look into the order passed in two civil revisions decided by this Court, the petitioner No.1 has not been granted any relief by the

High Court. On the contrary the claim of respondent No.3 and her childrens has been protected even in the said succession dispute.

Given the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case this Court does not find any strong case made out by the counsel for the petitioners at this

juncture to claim for compassionate appointment.

The Writ Petition thus being devoid of merits deserve to be and is accordingly dismissed.

So far as any other dispute between the parties are concerned, the petitioner has the option of availing other remedies available to her.

The Writ Petition accordingly stands dismissed.