WP(C) 5423/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE U.B. SAHA.. This writ petition is filed by the present petitioner Musstt. Hasina Beg um alias Banu for quashing the order of the Permanent Lok Adalat, district Lakhi mpur dated 17.7.2009 passed in Case No.PLA(l)01/2008 wherein the Permanent Lok A dalat dismissed the case of the petitioner for default of non-prosecution. Heard Md. A. Hai, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. U.K. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department appearing for the Respo ndents No.1 and 3. Also heard Mr. U.K. Nair, learned counsel for the Respondent No.2. This matter is taken up for final disposal at the motion-stage itself in absence of the remaining respondents, as those respondents would not be affecte d even if the writ petition is disposed of in their absence. The simple question involves in this case is that the petitioner is the second wife of Late Eusuf Ali, who expired on 18.11.2004 while he was working as an Assistant Teacher in Sonapur High Madrassa School at Sonapur, leaving the le gal heirs including the petitioner and due to death of the said deceased husband of the petitioner/Government employee, she had to obtain succession certificate from the Court of law and on obtaining the succession certificate, she preferre d application before the concerned authority for making payment as due to her be ing the second wife of the deceased Government employee. While payment was not m ade as entitled to by the petitioner, she made application to the Inspector of S chools, Lakhimpur District Circle, North Lakhimpur on 10.5.2007 for allowing her to receive 50% of the share of pensionary benefits of her late husband Eusuf Al i. But even after the said application also, the authority concerned did not pay any heed to the application. As there is no alternative before her, she sent a notice to the Inspector of Schools through her advocate dated 10.8.2009 praying for not to release the pensionary benefits, G.P.F. benefit and not to allow or w ithdraw the same amount by single signature of the Respondent No.5 before the ap propriate authority till disposal of Case No.PLA(L)01/2008 as said Case No.PLA(L )01/2008 was pending before the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Lakhimpur. As on 17.7.2009, the petitioner was absent without any steps, the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat dismissed the case of the petitioner for default. After the said ord er of dismissal for default as stated supra, as it appears from the pleadings of the writ petitioner that the petitioner made an application for setting aside a nd quashing the order of dismissal for default and for restoring Case No.PLA(L)0 1/2008 to its original file along with other prayers before the Court of Permane nt Lok Adalat under Section 22(c) of the Legal Services Authority Act, 1987 on 2 3rd September,2009 but the said application has not yet been disposed of by the Lok Adalalt. Mr. Hai, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a poor lady almost starving with her children due to non-payment of 50% of the pensionary benefits as she is entitled to and the Permanent Lok Adalat also did not restore the case of the petitioner, as stated supra. Rather, the authori ty is sleeping over the matter almost for one year. Mr. Goswami, learned Standing Counsel, Education Department and Mr. Nair , learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 fairly submit that it would be proper for this Court to direct the Chairman, Permanent Lok Adalat to dispose of the application for restoration and restore the case of the petitioner in it s original file within a stipulated period. Though they fairly submit that this Court has got the power to quash the order of dismissal and restore the same to file, this Court has gone through the impugned order of dismissal for default a nd also the application dated 23.9.2009 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition), which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is still pending. There is no doubt that this Court has the inherent power to restore the order of dismiss al and restore the same to its original file. This Court is of the view that whe n the petitioner moves an application for restoration of the case before the aut hority concerned, who has dismissed the case for default, it would not be proper for this Court to interfere with the power which would in fact, interfere with the power of the Court below. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Cha irman, Permanent Lok Adalat, Lakhimpur, North Lakhimpur to dispose of the petiti on dated 23.9.2009 (Annexure-4 to the writ petition) of the petitioner within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order in accordance with law. When the same will be disposed of by the Lok Ada lat, the Lok Adalat should consider that the petitioner is a rustic woman. She i s not aware of the procedure of law and for mere non-appearance on a single date , the Court may not dismiss the application of the petitioner for default as the duty of the Court is to hear the matter. The petitioner is directed to submit a copy of the order to the Chairman , Lok Adalat as stated supra within 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of co py. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is dispo sed of. No order as to costs.