1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 3628 of 2010 Smt. Mamta Suresh Dudhbale VERSUS The Ministry of Coal, Govt. of India and another - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. S. D. Thakur, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. S. C. Mehadia, Advocate for the Respondents CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK AND PRASANNA B. VARALE, JJ. DATE : 5th August, 2011. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to give employment to the petitioner in place of her deceased husband Suresh, who was an employee of the respondent no.2 The petitioner claims to be the widow of one Suresh, who expired while he was working with the respondents, on 21.11.2002. It is the case of the petitioner that though, several applications were made by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, the respondents failed to appoint the petitioner. A writ petition was also filed by the petitioner against the order passed by the respondents, rejecting the claim of the petitioner, without recording any reason. Hence, by an order dated 13.04.2010 in Writ Petition No. 804/2010, this Court directed the respondents to pass a reasoned order one way or the other. Hence, by a reasoned 2 order, the application of the petitioner was rejected. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the documents produced on record, it appears that the petitioner is the second wife of deceased Suresh. It is stated in the reply filed by the respondents that the land of one Smt. Pushpa Awari was acquired and due to the acquisition of the land, one member from the family of the land oustee was to be given appointment. Since, Smt. Pushpa Awari claimed that Suresh is her son-in-law, married to her daughter Maya, he may be given an appointment, the respondents appointed Suresh, who claimed to be the son-in-law of Smt. Pushpa Awari. It is the case of the respondents that on the basis of false and fabricated documents, Suresh sought appointment with the respondents. Even otherwise, according to the respondents, the present petitioner Smt. Mamta is the second wife of deceased Suresh and since the marriage is void, the petitioner was not entitled to claim appointment in place of Suresh. In the rejoinder filed by the petitioner, it is stated that the fact of marriage of Suresh with Maya came to her knowledge during the hearing of the previous writ petition. It is stated in the rejoinder that the petitioner has not heard about the first wife Maya for a period of past 12 years. In view of the aforesaid facts, it prima facie appears that the petitioner is not a legally wedded wife of Suresh and cannot seek an appointment on 3 his death. Even otherwise, it is clear from the communication issued by the petitioner to the respondents on 11.11.2003 at ‘Annexure-D’ that she was not desirous of seeking a job with the respondents and was interested in compensation in lieu of employment. Even otherwise, serious disputed questions of facts arise in this petition and it would not be possible for this Court to record a finding in regard to the validity of the marriage of the petitioner with deceased Suresh. Hence, for the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. JUDGE JUDGE Diwale