IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CMPMO No.420 of 2008. Date of decision: 20.11.2008. Smt.Rena Devi & Others …Petitioners Versus Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner & Ors. …Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Dev Darshan Sud,J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 For the Petitioners: Mr.Parmod Singh Thakur, Advocate. For Respondent No.1: Ms.Ruma Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, Advocate. For Respondents No.2&3: Mr.N.K. Thakur, Advocate. Dev Darshan Sud,J. This petition has been preferred by the petitioners herein against the order of the Commissioner under the Workmen Compensation Act, dismissing the application preferred under Sections 22 and 4-A of the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, (hereinafter referred to as the `Act’), with a prayer to recall the order dated 10.4.2008. The petitioners had filed a claim petition before the Commissioner under the Act praying for compensation of Dhyan Singh, deceased, who was husband of petitioner No.1 and father of petitioners No.2 to 5 and was working as a driver with the respondents. When the case was taken up by the Commissioner on 10.4.2008, the petition was disposed of as the 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2 Himachal Road Transport Corporation by an order dated 4.3.2008 has sanctioned and paid a sum of Rs.3,73,800/- in full settlement of the claim of the petitioners herein. The Memorandum making the payment has been placed on the record of the case. On that day, the Commissioner records that counsel for the petitioners had admitted that compensation has been received by the dependants, petitioners herein. Subsequently, an application had been filed before the Commissioner praying for recalling of the order dated 10.4.2008 on the ground that no such statement has been made by the counsel. The order rejecting that application is now under challenge. In order to satisfy the conscience of this Court, notice was issued in the petition and the record of the Commissioner was called for. I find from the record that the petitioners have been compensated in accordance with law. The respondents have factually paid the amount due in accordance with law. Merely raising the specter of the illegality without in any manner satisfying this Court as to whether the petitioners herein had not been compensated in accordance with law is not sufficient for entertaining the present petition. The submission made on behalf of the petitioners was that this amount was an ex-gratia payment and could not be treated as compensation having been paid under the Act. This submission cannot be accepted. I do not find from the record that this plea of the petitioners substantiated. There is, thus, no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. November 20, 2008. (Dev Darshan Sud) (aks) Judge.