1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 5494 OF 2007 (Smt. Baby Dadaji Matte .v. The Chief General Manager WCL and others) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Smt. Jayshree Mahajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri R.D. Dharmadhikari, Advocate for the respondent No.2. Shri S.B. Bangde, Advocate for the respondent No.3. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 23RD APRIL, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The petitioner claims that she married with deceased Dadaji Matte in the year 1985 who died in the year 2006 while in service with the respondent No.1 and, therefore, she made an application before the respondent No.4 claiming gratuity payable to the deceased Dadaji Matte. The petitioner's application was rejected by the respondent No.4 vide order dated 17.04.2007 on the ground that the petitioner's name does not appear in any record and she is not discharging her duties as a wife since last 20 years. It was also observed that it is not proved that the petitioner is dependent on deceased Dadaji. This order was confirmed by the respondent No.3 which order is 2 impugned in the present petition. Both the authorities below concurrently held that the petitioner is not entitled for amount of gratuity payable to the deceased Dadaji as deceased Dadaji did not nominate petitioner for the purposes of gratuity and on the contrary the petitioner's son by name Mithun as well as the respondent No.2 and her two minor children were nominated by the deceased Dadaji. That apart, the respondent No.2, by filing written submission, annexed the agreement executed by the petitioner and deceased Dadaji in the year 1988 under which the petitioner is given divorce. The question regarding validity of the divorce under this agreement is a matter deserves to be decided by the competent Civil Court and the same could not have been decided by the authorities below. In the backdrop of the above, I do not find any error or perversity in the approach adopted by the lower authorities below and, therefore, I am not inclined to interfere in the concurrent findings of facts. The petition is, therefore, dismissed accordingly with no order as to costs. JUDGE