1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.8801/2009 Smt. Badami Bai vs AVVN Ltd & Ors. DATE OF ORDER : 5.10.2009. HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA,J. Mr.Harish Purohit, for the petitioner . <><><> Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner's contention is that petitioner's husband was appointed on the post of Helper on 7th April, 1980. The petitioner's husband suffered attack of Paralysis in the month of Jan., 2006 and, therefore, he could not attend the office then petitioner's husband served with the charge- sheet on 25th May, 2006 and ultimately, he was punished vide order dated 11.8.2006 with warning only. The petitioner's husband then submitted an application for seeking voluntary retirement, which petitioner says was not submitted by the petitioner's husband but one of the colleague of the petitioner's husband obtained the signature of the petitioner's husband on blank paper on pretext of seeking medical leave on 14.8.2006. On 5th Sept., 2006 the petitioner's husband died then on 11.12.2006, the petitioner submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment and that was refused vide order dated 18.12.2006, hence, this writ petition has been preferred. According to learned counsel for the petitioner alleged 2 application seeking voluntary retirement has not been signed by the petitioner's husband and and petitioner's husband has not sought voluntary retirement. It is submitted that one colleague of the petitioner's husband obtained signature on paper and submitted that application as application seeking voluntary retirement. I considered the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the facts. The petitioner normally could not have any personal knowledge about the facts stated above because if the facts stated by the petitioner are accepted then petitioner's husband himself was not knowing till his death that his any colleague has obtained his signature on any blank paper. The petitioner further failed to disclose how she came to know that any colleague of the petitioner for any valid reason, must have obtained the application for voluntary retirement. All these disputed questions of facts cannot be gone into in writ jurisdiction and there is no merit in this writ petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (PRAKASH TATIA),J. cpgoyal/-