WP(C) 3029/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA. Heard Mr. A.R. Sikdar, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Ms J. Huda, learned Central Govt. Counsel appearing for the official respondents. None has appeared on behalf of the Respondent No.5 although affidavit-in-opposit ion has been filed. The petitioners claiming themselves to be the wife and daughter of Late Rajendra Rajowar, have filed this writ petition praying for a direction to the r espondents to give them all service benefits pertaining to the services rendered by their husband/father Late Rajendra Rajowar. The deceased was an employee (ci vilian labourer), working under the Commanding Officer, 444 Coy Asc (supply), C/ O 99 APO, Masimpur, Cachar. He died while in service on 12.3.2000. While it is the case of the petitioners that they are the only legal hei rs of the deceased employee, the case of the official respondents as well as Res pondent No.5 is that the deceased died unmarried and in fact, in his service doc uments, he had nominated his brother namely, Shankar Rajowar to receive all serv ice benefits. In this connection, the respondents have annexed nomination form, which was signed by the deceased nominating his brother Shri Shankar Rajowar. Be it stated here that in the meantime, Shankar Rajowar also expired leaving beh ind his son Shri Jiten Rajowar i.e. the Respondent No.5. However, according to t he petitioner, the Respondent No.5 is not the son of Late Shankar Rajowar, but i s the son of another brother of the deceased Shri Jayanta Rajowar. On the other hand, it is the claim of the Respondent No.5 that his father Shankar Rajowar was also known as Jayanta Rajowar. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents, the basic facts relat ing to service of the deceased have been admitted. It has been stated that in th e Service Book, the legal heir of the deceased, as nominated by him, is his brot her Shankar Rajowar and accordingly, after his death, due intimation was given t o Shankar Rajowar vide letter dated 3.5.2000. However, it was intimated that Sha nkar Rajowar too, had already expired on 27.6.1996. In paragraph 6 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that after n ecessary investigation, it was found that the deceased was not married. Subseque ntly, the Respondent No.5 claiming himself to be the son of Late Shankar Rajowa r had submitted the succession certificate issued by the District Judge, Hailaka ndi authorizing him to receive the service benefits pertaining to the services o f the deceased. In paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the pet itioners had never visited the office of the Respondent No.1. As per the records maintained in the office, the deceased was not married till the time of his dea th while in service. None of the petitioners was present by his side when he di ed. It was the co-workers, who cremated the deceased and the said co-workers are also of the opinion that the deceased died unmarried. In paragraph 11 of the co unter affidavit, it has been stated that the Respondent No.5 has produced the re levant documents to show that he is the son of Late Shankar Rajowar, who was nom inee of the deceased. In the counter affidavit filed by the Respondent No.5, he has denied tha t the petitioners are the wife and daughter of the deceased. He has stated that his uncle never got married and that the writ petitioners are strangers. It has also been stated that as the petitioners obtained succession certificate withhol ding the material facts, he is going to file an application seeking revocation o f the succession certificate. It has also been stated that his father shankar ra jwar was also known as Jayanta Rajowar Along with the counter affidvit, the Resp ondent No.5 has also enclosed a copy of the letter dated 28.12.2004 addressed to the Officer in Charge, 444 Supply ASC, Arunachal, Cachar by the petitioner No.1 expressing her desire and agreement to get service benefits of the deceased in equal share with that of the Respondent No.5. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners, the contentions raised in the counter affidavits filed by the respondents have been denied. They have questioned the validity of the succession certificate obtained by the Respondent No.5 and have also claimed that the Respondent No.5 is not the son of Late Shan kar Rajowar. The whole basis of the claim of the petitioner is the purported bi rth certificate in respect of the petitioner No.2, a copy of which has been anne xed to the writ petition as Annexure-6. In the birth certificate, the name of th e father is shown as Rajendra Rajuar. On the basis of the above material, it is difficult for this Court to gi ve a definite finding that the petitioners are the wife and daughter of the dec eased employee. This is a matter to be decided by the respondents on the basis o f the available materials towards releasing the service benefits of the deceased employee. Whatever formalities are required to be observed, the respondents ma y do so after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to both the partie s. Let the matter be given finality as expeditiously as possible. The parties ma y approach the respondents with their respective claim and the respondents shall decide the issue on the basis of the available materials and in accordance with law. With the above direction, the writ petition is disposed of.