IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20260 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Asha Devi W/O Late Mahendra Prasad @ Rajendra Kumar R/O Village- Purab Sarai Near Fanri, P.S.- Kotwali,P.O. + District- Munger, Pin No. 811201 .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union Of India Through Its Chief Secretary, Railway Board, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi. 2. The Chief Factory (Workshop) Manager, Eastern Rly., Jamalpur, District- Munger (Bihar) 3. The G.M., Eastern Rly., Fairly Bhawan, Hawra (West Bengal) 4. The Chief (Principal) Secretary Ministry Of Railway, Union Of India, New Delhi 5. The Workshop Accounts Officer Eastern Railway, Jamalpur, District- Munger (Bihar) 6. Account Officer/Pension Signature FA & CAO, East Central Railway, HJP (Bihar) 7. Head Officer, Office of the FA & CAO (Pension), 17, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata(West Bangal), 700001. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh Mr. Rana Baljit Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL) 3 29-11-2011 Petitioner, claiming herself to be the first wife of the deceased employee namely Mahendra Prasad @ Rajendra Kumar, is aggrieved by the order dated 7.5.2009 (Annexure-1) passed by the Chief Workshop Manager, Eastern Railway, Jamalpur whereby she has been informed that Rakesh Kumar, being the son of the second wife of the deceased employee, was/is not entitled for Patna High Court CWJC No.20260 of 2011 (3) dt.29-11-2011 2 consideration for grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. This communication was made in the year 2009. Nearly two and a half years thereafter, the present application has been filed. Learned counsel contends that by mistake documents indicating Rakesh Kumar to be the son of the second wife of the deceased employee was furnished. Petitioner has tried to explain with reference to the averments made in the writ petition that by mistake documents disclosing Rakesh Kumar as the son of the second wife of the deceased employee were furnished. It is contended that the mistake has been corrected and fresh documents have been furnished indicating the fact that Rakesh Kumar is the son of the first wife of the deceased employee. In order to explain the delay, it has been contended that several representations in this regard were made but the authorities did not pay any heed to them. He refers in this regard to Annexure- 5 which is one of such representations. Learned counsel for the respondent Railways, on the other hand, submits that it is admitted in the writ petition that initially the documents filed in support of the claim indicated that petitioner was/is the son of second wife of the deceased employee. Learned counsel submitted that this is essentially a question of fact which should not be gone into by the Writ Court invoking Patna High Court CWJC No.20260 of 2011 (3) dt.29-11-2011 3 extraordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, contends that the petitioner would be satisfied that if she is granted liberty to file a fresh representation in this regard before the Chief Workshop Manager, Eastern Railway Jamalpur (respondent No. 2), who, in turn, may be commanded to consider and dispose of the representation in accordance with law. Having heard the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record and submissions made by the parties, this Court is satisfied that present application be disposed of by the following order: Let the petitioner file a representation together with a copy of the present order before the respondent No. 2 ventilating her grievance which shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law by a reasoned order preferably within eight weeks of its filing. PANKAJ KUMAR/- (Kishore K. Mandal, J)