Smt. Maya Bai and Others vs The General Manager, WCM and Others

This appeal is directed against an order dated 8.5.2012 in W.P.17466/10(S) by which the leaned Single Judge allowed the writ petition preferred by respondent No. 3 and 4 and directed that the case for compassionate appointment of respondent No. 4 be considered by the respondent No. 1 and 2. Facts of the case are that late Mahesh Shrivastava was an employee of Respondent No. 1 and 2 who died in harness. Respondent No. 3 Smt. Shobha Shrivastava is his legally wedded wife and from the wedlock respondent No. 4 Surendra Shrivastava was born. It appears that thereafter Mahesh Shrivastava married to appellant No. 1 Smt. Maya Bai and from her appellant No. 2 Manish Shrivastava was born. After the death of Mahesh Shrivastava, appellant No. 1 and 2 filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P. 9334/08 (s), in which the appellants prayed for direction to the respondent No. 1 to consider the claim of appellant No. 2 for compassionate appointment.

The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of on 6.2.2008 and directions were issued in this regard. When this fact came into the notice of respondent No. 3 and 4, they objected and filed a writ petition before this Court. The Writ Court found that respondent No. 3 was a legally wedded wife and respondent No. 4 is son of respondent No. 3 from Mahesh Shrivastava and directed for consideration of the case of respondent No. 4 for compassionate appointment. The Writ Court also directed that firstly the case of the respondent No. 4 be considered for compassionate appointment. This order is under challenge in this petition.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that respondent No. 3 was deserted by Mahesh Shrivastava and thereafter he contracted another marriage with appellant No. 1 and thereafter appellant No. 2 was born who was entitled for compassionate appointment.

In the light of the facts as stated by the parties, it is apparent that respondent No. 3 is legally wedded wife of Mahesh Shrivastava, with whom there was no dissolution of marriage by decree of divorce and without such decree if Mahesh Shrivastava contracted another marriage with appellant No. 1, appellant No. 1 cannot be treated as his legally wedded wife. In absence of any decree of divorce between Mahesh and Shobha, respondent No. 3, she continue as a legally wedded wife.

In the aforesaid circumstances, the respondent No. 3 and 4 were entitled for terminal service benefits of Mahesh Shrivastava. The Single Bench has rightly directed for consideration of the case of respondent No. 4 for compassionate appointment. Earlier in W.P. No. 9334/2008 which was filed by the appellants herein, it is not in dispute that respondent No. 3 and 4 were not party. We do not find any merit in this appeal. The order passed by the Single Bench is in accordance with law, needs no interference. This appeal is dismissed at the admission stage with no order as to costs.

As we have considered the case on merits, we do not find any reason to issue notice on I.A.9629/12 u/s 5 of Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing this appeal. The aforesaid application is also dismissed.