^—-'^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPU \^ Civil Revision No.106 of 2004 PETITIONERS: Smt. Prabha VV/o Shri Ambika Prasad & D/o Late Mriguram, aged about 31 years. Raja Ram S/o Late Mrigu Ram aged 29 years. Both resident of Bhathupara Ambikapur Distrlct Surguja (CG). Versus Jamni Devi W/o Late Mraguram, aged 50 years, r/o Village Manipur Tehsil Ambikapur District Surguja (CG). The State of Chhattisgarh Through the Collector Sarguja (CG). (Civil revision under Section 115 ofthe Code of Civil Procedure, 1908} RESPONDENTS: Present: No.2. Mr. Sunil Sahu, counsel for the applicants. Mr. Sushit Dubey, counsel for non-applicant No.1. Mr. U.K. Singh Chandel, Panel Lawyer for the State/non-applicant Sinale Bench: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Shamna. J ORALORDER (23-10-2010) 1. By this revision, the applicant has challenged legality & propriety of the order dated 17-4-2004 passed by the 2nd Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, in Mi^c,, Civil Appeal No.22/2002, whereby & whereunder learned Additional District Judge has held that the applicants & non- applicant No.1 are successors of deceased Mriguram and entitled to succeed pension and gratuity of Mriguram. The lower appellate Court has also heid that in case of compassionate appointment priority should be given to non-appiicant No.1 . 2. I have heard learned -counsel for the parties, perused the order impugned, record ofthe Court below and evidence adduced on behalfof both the parties, minutely. -^n: """' -^ ;;^. ^ / ,-fc^ Soma 3. As per the evidence of both the parties, parties are not membe'r Hindu, they aremembers of Uraon, a community of Scheduled Tribe, and second marriage is permissible amongstthem. Non-applicant No:1 was married to Mriguram (since deceased) as his second wife and she lived with Mriguram for long time as wife. Considering the aforesaid evidence, the lower appellate Court while allowing the appeal filed against the order dated 1 1-5-2001 passed by the 1st Civii Judge Class-l, Ambikapur in Succession Case No.55/98, has passed the order impugned. 4. On close scrutiny of record and evidence, 1 do not find any illegality jn the order impugned to the extent that the applicants & non-applicant No.1 are successors of deceased Mriguram and are entitled for succession certificate relating to pension and gratuity. However, the lower appellate Court was not competent to issue any direction relating to compassionate appointment. 5. With this observation, the revision stands disposed of. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge —zz •"^K.