Full Judgment
W.P.No.18396/2011 Smt. Annapoorna Devi vs. S.E.C.L & ORS.1 24.06.2013 Shri K.C.Ghildiyal learned counsel for the petitioner.
Smt.
Indira Nair, learned Senior Counsel with Shri K.
Rohan for the respondents.
The petitioner has filed this petition claiming compassionate appointment in place of her husband Shri Aadi Narayan who died while in service of the respondents on 6.8.2001.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been pressing her case before the respondents since the very beginning and the respondents have been exchanging letters but no concrete action has been taken by them.
It is submitted that the petitioner is the legally married wife of Late Shri Aadi Narayan and she has also been granted all other service benefits of Late Shri Aadi Narayan on his death but her claim for compassionate appointment has not been considered on account of the fact that previously the service record of Late Shri Aadi Narayan mentions the name of his wife as Smt.
Janakamma.
It is stated that the late husband of the petitioner had moved an application on 19.6.1998 requesting that the record be corrected and the name of the petitioner be inserted in the record, inspite of which the respondent authorities are not granting compassionate appointment to the petitioner in accordance with National Coal Wage Agreement-V which is binding on the respondents.
The respondents have filed a return and have W.P.No.18396/2011 Smt. Annapoorna Devi vs. S.E.C.L & ORS.2 stated that the service record of the petitioner's husband clearly states and mentions the name of Smt.
Janakamma as his wife.
It is submitted that subsequently the petitioner's husband filed an application for inserting the name of the petitioner as his wife but there was no request for deleting the name of Smt.
Janakamma not was any statement made before them to the effect that the name of Smt.
Janakamma was wrongly mentioned or it was a clerical mistake or that Janakamma did not exist.
The respondents in the return have further stated that the case of the petitioner was considered and she was informed in the year 2005 itself that it was not possible to grant her compassionate appointment through the Union which was espousing the petitioner's case.
It is further submitted that in view of the aforesaid, as the name of the two wives are mentioned in the record and the petitioner appears to be the second wife, therefore, the right has been denied.
The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent authorities have also got the matter enquired through the police of Andhra Pradesh and have stated that the whereabouts of Smt.
Janakamma was not traceable and the petitioner has also obtained a succession certificate from the Civil Judge Class-I Budhar in respect of the monetary benefits and in such circumstances the respondents be directed to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner.
Looking to the facts which have been brought on W.P.No.18396/2011 Smt. Annapoorna Devi vs. S.E.C.L & ORS.3 record, it is clear that there is an apparent factual controveRs.relating to the issue as to whether the petitioner was the second wife of Late Shri Aadi Narayan or whether Smt.
Janakamma is his wife.
It is also clear that the aforesaid issue requires adjudication of several disputed questions of facts which can only be decided by the competent court in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of A.P.Foods vs.S.Samuel and otheRs.(2006) 5 SCC 469.
The petition, filed by the petitioner, is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach the competent court for mitigation of her grievance.
With the aforesaid liberty, the petition, filed by the petitioner, stands disposed of.
C.C as per rules.
( R.S.JHA ) JUDGE mms/-