(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Review Application No. __________ of 2010 (Stamp No. 13612/2010) (In Writ Petition No. 8166 of 2009) Godavari Marathwada Irrigation Development Corporation, Aurangabad, through the Executive Engineer, Minor Irrigation Department, Parbhani. .. Applicant. versus 1. Smt. Kamlabai w/o. Shankarrao Jadhav, Age : 38 years, Occupation : Household, R/o. Sawana, Taluka : Sengaon, District : Hingoli. 2. Santosh s/o. Shankarrao Jadhav, Age : 26 years, Occupation : Agriculture, R/o. Sawana, Taluka : Sengaon, District : Hingoli. 3. The Senior Accounts Officer, Office of the Accountant General (A&E), Maharashtra Civil Lines, Nagpur. .. Non-applicants. .......................... (2) Mr. Umakant K. Patil, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate, for non-applicant no.1. Mr. P.R. Nangre, Advocate, for non-applicant no.2. Mrs. R.K. Ladda, Assistant Government Pleader, for non-applicant no.3. .......................... CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 10TH AUGUST 2010 COURT'S ORDER : 1. Review Application taken up for admission. Office to register it as Review Application. 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 3. By way of present application, the applicant is seeking review of the order dated 18th December 2009, passed in Writ Petition No. 8166/2009. (3) 4. Mr. U.K. Patil, learned Counsel appearing for the applicant, submits that the order under review needs to be recalled on two grounds. Firstly, the writ petitioner was married to the deceased employee when his first marriage was subsisting and, as such, the marriage was not valid in law. The writ petitioner, therefore, was not entitled for pensionary benefits. Secondly, the present applicant, who is employer, was not impleaded as party respondent in the proceedings before the learned Civil Judge. 5. In so far as the first contention is concerned, this Court has found that the son and daughter of the deceased employee from his first wife has not disputed the status of the writ petitioner regarding the wife of the employee. Nothing has been placed on record to show that the writ petitioner had married the deceased employee, during the period, his earlier marriage was subsisting. 6. In so far as the second contention, regarding the non- joinder of the present applicant in the proceedings before the Civil Court, is concerned, grant of heirship certificate is a matter between the sons and daughters of first wife of the deceased employee and the second wife of the employee, and the applicant (4) does not have any role in the said proceedings. 7. In that view of the matter, no error apparent on the face of record is found, so as to invoke review jurisdiction. The Review Application is, therefore, rejected. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ......................... bgp/rast13612