JUDGMENT: PRANAB KUMAR CHATTOPADHYAY, J. (1) BOTH the appeals have been preferred assailing the same judgment and order dated 6th October, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition filed by the widow of an employee of Bharat Coking Coal Limited. The said appeals were heard analogously for the aforesaid reason and are disposed of by this common judgment. (2) FROM the records we find that the deceased husband of the writ petitioner was a permanent employee of Basantimate Colliery under Bharat Coking Coal limited. The said deceased husband of the writ petitioner herein was charge sheeted along with one other employee namely, Trinath Sethi on the same day i.e. on 16th July, 1998 on the identical charges and were placed under suspension. In view of issuance of the aforesaid charge sheets, the deceased husband of the writ petitioner along with the other employee namely, Trinath Sethi jointly filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the initiation of the disciplinary proceedings. Initially, Altamas Kabir, J. (as His Lordship then was) while considering the aforesaid writ petition bearing W.P.No. 1708 of 1998 on 24th September, 1998 not only directed the parties to file affidavits in the matter but, also passed an interim order pending hearing of the said writ petition to the effect that the disciplinary proceeding against the petitioners may continue and final order may also be passed, but the same should not be given effect to without obtaining leave of this Honble Court. In view of the liberty granted by this Honble Court by the aforesaid interim order dated 24th September, 1998, disciplinary proceeding initiated against the husband of the present writ petitioner was continued and final order of dismissal was also passed by the disciplinary authority on 23rd October, 2001. Unfortunately on 3rd November, 2001, the husband of the present writ petitioner died. The order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority in respect of the said husband of the writ petitioner herein was not given effect to till his death as no leave was obtained from this Honble Court in compliance with the aforesaid interim order even though the said writ petition filed by the late husband of the present writ petitioner herein was not disposed of by that time. Afterwards, the said writ petition was dismissed on merits by this Court on 27th March, 2003 when the concerned writ petitioner namely, the husband of the present writ petitioner was not alive. After the aforesaid death of the husband, present writ petitioner claimed employment from the competent authorities of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited and also prayed for releasing the service benefits of his said deceased husband. Since the authorities of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited did not grant the aforesaid prayers made by the widow of the deceased employee (Linga Raj sethi), a writ petition was filed by the said widow which was finally disposed of by the learned Single Judge of this Court by the judgment and order under appeal. By the aforesaid judgment and order under appeal, learned Single Judge refused to grant all the service benefits of the deceased employee to the widow, namely, the present writ petitioner on the ground that during the life-time of the deceased employee, order of dismissal was passed by the disciplinary authority and the said order of dismissal remained unchallenged by the employee concerned. The learned Single Judge also observed that the present writ petitioner cannot challenge the order of dismissal issued to her late husband. The learned Single Judge, however, issued direction for payment of the terminal benefits to the present writ petitioner on account of dismissal of her late husband from service. The learned Single Judge further granted liberty to the present writ petitioner to make an application before the concerned respondent for a suitable employment, if permissible under the law. The writ petitioner being aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the learned single Judge preferred an appeal before this Honble Court which was numbered as A. P. O. No. 237 of 2006. (3) THE Bharat Coking Coal Limited was also aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the learned Single Judge and preferred another appeal there from bearing A.P.O. No. 613 of 2005 on the ground that this Honble Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition as no cause of action ever arose either wholly or partly within the territorial jurisdiction of this honble Court. (4) IN the aforesaid background, following issues are required to be decided by this Court: a) Whether the writ petition filed by the wife of the deceased employee before this Honble Court was maintainable in view of the objection raised by the Bharat Coking Coal Limited on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Honble Court? b) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case writ petitioner being the wife of the deceased employee is entitled to get all the service benefits of the said deceased employee including the compassionate appointment in spite of issuance of the order of dismissal against the said deceased employee? (5) MR. Kalimuddin Mondal, learned Counsel representing the Bharat Coking coal Limited specifically submitted that this Court lacks territorial jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the wife of the deceased employee. Mr. Mondal further submits that the entire departmental proceeding in respept of the deceased husband of the writ petitioner was conducted in the Basantimata colliery, which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this Honble Court. Mr. Mondal also submits that the registered office of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited is at Dhanbad and all directions regarding appointment and grant of service benefits to the writ petitioner are required to be issued by the concerned authority from Dhanbad which is outside the territorial jurisdiction of this honble Court. The learned Counsel of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited strongly urged before this Court that no part of the cause of action had arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and, therefore, the writ petition filed by the widow of the deceased employee should have been dismissed by the learned Single Judge on the ground of maintainability due to lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Honble Court instead of granting any relief to the said writ petitioner. (6) THE learned Counsel representing the widow of the deceased employee and the appellant in A. P. O. No. 237 of 2006 seriously opposed the aforesaid arguments made on behalf of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited. It has been submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that the General Manager, Chanch victoria Area, the respondent No. 4 in the writ petition is the appropriate authority to settle the grievances of the said writ petitioner and grant necessary relief. It has been submitted on behalf of the writ petitioner that the General Manager, Chanch victoria Area, the respondent No. 4 in the writ petition is the appropriate authority to settle the grievances of the said writ petitioner and grant necessary relief. It has also been submitted by the learned Counsel of the writ petitioner that the said writ petitioner being the widow of the deceased employee submitted representation before the said General Manager, Chanch Victoria Area for issuing appropriate direction to the Finance Manager for releasing the admissible service benefits of her deceased husband who was in employment as an employee of Basantimata Colliery under Bharat Coking Coal Limited. (7) MR. Subrata Ganguly, learned Counsel representing the appellant/writ petitioner in A. P. O. No. 237 of 2006 also submits that the said General Manager, chanch Victoria Area is the appropriate authority for issuing necessary order regarding appointment of the writ petitioner on compassionate ground. (8) THERE is no dispute that the offence of the General Manager, Chanch victoria Area is at Barakar in the district of Burdwan which is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honble Court. The General Manager, Chanch victoria Area is also the appropriate authority for taking necessary decision regarding disbursement of the service benefits of the deceased husband of the writ petitioner herein. The claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground should also be decided ultimately by the said General manager, Charich Victoria Area. Furthermore, the Head Office of Coal India limited is also situated within the jurisdiction of this Honble Court which is the holding company of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited under which the disciplinary authority of the deceased husband of the writ petitioner was working and the other authorities empowered to grant relief to the writ petitioner were also working. (9) THE identical issue was also considered by the Division Bench of this honble Court presided over by Pratap Kumar Ray, J. while deciding a writ petition bearing W. P. No. 2458 of 2003 which was referred to before the said division Bench for considering the point of maintainability pursuant to an administrative order of the Honble The Chief Justice of this Honble Court. The learned Counsel of the writ petitioner referred to and relied on an unreported judgment of the said Division Bench dated 27th June, 2007 passed in W. P. No. 2458 of 2003 wherein the Honble Division Bench considering the identical issue under similar circumstances in respect of the same colliery came to the conclusion that a considerable part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. (10) FOR the aforementioned reasons, we also hold that in the present case a substantial part of the cause of action arose within the territorial jurisdiction of this Honble Court and the writ petition filed by the widow of the deceased employee before this Honble Court, therefore, cannot be said to be not maintainable on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. (11) IN the aforesaid circumstances, the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited for dismissal of the writ petition bearing W. P. No. 2013 of 2003 filed by the widow of the deceased employee on the ground of maintainability due to lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Honble court cannot be allowed and the same is rejected. (12) THE other important issue to be taken up for consideration is whether the deceased husband of the writ petitioner herein was actually dismissed from service. (13) UNDISPUTEDLY, the disciplinary proceeding was conducted in respect of the deceased husband of the writ petitioner herein and ultimately the order of dismissal was also passed by the concerned disciplinary authority, but the same could not be given effect to pursuant to the restriction imposed by this Honble court by the interim order dated 24th September, 1998 passed in the earlier writ petition bearing W. P. No. 1708 of 1998 filed by the deceased husband of the present writ petitioner. (14) WHETHER the order of dismissal was communicated or not is immaterial in the facts of the present case as the same could not be given effect to without obtaining prior leave of this Honble Court pursuant to the specific order passed earlier on 24th September, 1998 by Altamas Kabir, J. (as His Lordship then was) in W. P. No. 1708 of 1998. (15) FROM the records we find that the order of dismissal was passed against the deceased husband of the present writ petitioner herein namely, Linga Raj sethi on 23rd October, 2001 whereas the said husband of the present writ petitioner died on 3rd November, 2001. Since no leave was obtained from this honble Court in terms of the aforesaid order dated 24th September, 1998, the said order of dismissal could not be given effect. The said order of dismissal could also not be challenged by the deceased husband of the writ petitioner in view of his sudden death within couple of days after the issuance of the said order of dismissal. (16) IN any event, the fate of the aforesaid order of dismissal issued by the authority concerned could not be properly taken into consideration by this honble Court at the time of final disposal of the writ petition filed by the concerned employee namely, the deceased husband of the present writ petitioner. The said writ petition filed by the deceased employee being W. P. No. 1708 of 1998 was dismissed by Barin Ghosh, J. by the judgment and order dated 27th march, 2003 when the learned Judge had no information regarding the death of the writ petitioner as none appeared on behalf of the said writ petitioner. (17) THE learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petition bearing W. P. No. 2013 of 2003 filed by the widow of the deceased employee specifically held that the interim order passed by this Court in the earlier writ petition of the deceased employee bearing W. P. No. 1708 of 1998 stood vacated on the date of dismissal of the said writ petition by Barin Ghosh, J. on 27th March, 2003. Learned Single Judge in the judgment and order under appeal also held that on the date of the dismissal of the writ petition the order of dismissal of the petitioners husband from services is automatically given effect to with retrospective effect. (18) WE are unable to approve the aforesaid finding of the learned Single judge as correct for the reasons discussed hereinafter. (19) THE writ petition filed by the deceased employee concerned was admittedly, decided finally by the learned Single Judge after the death of the writ petitioner due to ignorance of the said death. (18) WE are unable to approve the aforesaid finding of the learned Single judge as correct for the reasons discussed hereinafter. (19) THE writ petition filed by the deceased employee concerned was admittedly, decided finally by the learned Single Judge after the death of the writ petitioner due to ignorance of the said death. Therefore, the said judgment and order passed by Barin Ghosh, J. cannot be considered in law to be effective under any circumstances. The Division Bench of this Honble Court in the case of Kanailal Manna and Ors. vs. Bhabataran Santra and Ors. , reported in AIR 1970 calcutta 99, specifically held: "17. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . We are of the opinion that on the facts of the present case on the death of one of the plaintiff respondents in the Court of Appeal below the appellants before the said Court who are also the appellants before us could no longer have in law invited the said Court to adjudicate upon matters in controversy vide 30 CLJ 217: AIR 1920 Cal 264. It has also been made expressly clear by the Supreme Court now that in such circumstances the court of Appeal below could not but dismiss the appeal because of abatement against one of the plaintiff respondents on the ground of defect in the constitution of the appeal without going into merits. If that is the clear position in law it matters little whether the Court of Appeal below had gone on the merits and decided the appeal on such merits in ignorance of the death and the abatement. We are therefore unable to consider the judgment and decree rendered by the Court of Appeal below to be any way effective in law on its merits and even if the Court of Appeal below had done so we must hold that the said Court had done it erroneously although the error might have arisen because of ignorance of the death. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . " (20) IN the aforesaid circumstances, the order passed by Barin Ghosh, J. on march 27, 2003 while deciding the writ petition filed by the deceased husband of the present writ petitioner being W. P. No. 1708 of 1998 could not be held to be anyway effective in law on its merits. Therefore, the learned Single Judge herein committed serious error while deciding the writ petition filed by the widow of the deceased employee by the judgment and order under appeal for placing reliance upon and giving effect to the aforesaid judgment and order passed by Barin Ghosh, j. on March 27, 2003 in the writ petition filed by the deceased employee bearing W.P. No. 1708 of 1998 which was not effective in law. (21) THE learned Counsel of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited also admitted that the deceased husband of the writ petitioner received subsistence allowance till death which clearly goes to show that the deceased husband of the writ petitioner was not dismissed from service till death. Mr. Ganguly, learned counsel of the present writ petitioner referred to and relied on a decision of the division Bench of Bombay High Court in the case of Hirabai Deshmukh andanr. vs. State of Maharasthra (Revenue Department) and Ors. , reported in 1986 (1) All india Services Law Journal page 426, wherein it has been specifically held that if the suspended employee dies during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, his family will be entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspended period treating him on duty. vs. State of Maharasthra (Revenue Department) and Ors. , reported in 1986 (1) All india Services Law Journal page 426, wherein it has been specifically held that if the suspended employee dies during the pendency of the disciplinary proceeding, his family will be entitled to full pay and allowances for the suspended period treating him on duty. The aforesaid principle is very much applicable in the facts of the present case as the deceased husband of the present writ petitioner died as a suspended employee since the order of dismissal passed by the disciplinary authority could not be given effect to till the death of the said employee pursuant to the specific order passed by Altamas kabir, J. (as His lordship then was) on 24th September, 1998 in W. P. No. 1708 of 1998 whereby and where under the concerned authorities of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited were restrained from giving effect to the final order passed in the departmental proceedings in respect of the said deceased husband of the present writ petitioner without obtaining leave of this Court and the said leave was never obtained. (22) IN view of the aforesaid position, the deceased employee namely, the husband of the present writ petitioner as well as the appellant in A.P.O. No. 237 of 2006 should be treated as suspended employee of the Basantimata colliery under Bharat Coking Coal Limited at the time of death since the order of dismissal could not be given any effect till the death of the said employee. The writ petitioner, Smt. Champa Rani Sethi, being the widow of the deceased employee of Basantimata Colliery under Bharat Coking Coal Limited is, therefore, entitled to enjoy all the benefits as are available to the dependant of the deceased employee of Bharat Coking Coal Limited who died-in-harness. (23) MR. Subrata Ganguly, learned Counsel representing the said writ petitioner, Smt. Champa Rani Sethi specifically urged before this Court that the authorities of Bharat Coking Coal Limited are bound by the National Coal wages Agreement to provide employment to the dependant of the deceased employee and the writ petitioner being the widow of the deceased employee is entitled to claim the said benefit. (24) MR. (24) MR. Kalimuddin Mondal, learned Counsel of the Bharat Coking Coal limited submits that after the lapse of more than six years, the said widow of the deceased employee is not entitled to claim employment on compassionate ground. There is no dispute that the widow of the deceased employee namely, the writ petitioner and the appellant in A.P.O. No. 237 of 2006 claimed employment on compassionate ground within the period of two years of the death of her husband and, therefore, it cannot be said that the present writ petitioner claimed for compassionate appointment after a lapse of reasonable period. (25) DUE to the pendency of the litigation in the Court of Law, considerable time had lapsed for which the writ petitioner was in no way responsible and, therefore, the said writ petitioner cannot suffer any prejudice. (26) FOR the aforementioned reasons, we direct the concerned authorities of the Bharat Coking Coal Limited including the General Manager, Chanch victoria Area to issue necessary order releasing all admissible service benefits of the deceased husband of the present writ petitioner namely, Linga Raj Sethi, who was an employee in Basantimata Colliery uader Bharat Coking Coal limited without any further delay, but positively within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. The aforesaid authorities are also directed to consider the claim of the present writ petitioner for providing employment on compassionate ground in accordance with law specially under national Coal Wages Agreement without any further delay but positively within a period of six weeks from the date of communication of this order. (27) IN view of the aforesaid directions, the judgment and order under appeal passed by the learned Single Judge is set aside and the appeal preferred by the writ petitioner being A. P. O. No. 237 of 2006 stands allowed. The other appeal preferred by Bharat Coking Coal Limited being A. P. O. No. 613 of 2005, however, stands dismissed. (28) IN the facts and circumstances of this case, there will be no order as to costs. (29) LET xerox copies of this judgment duly countersigned by the Assistant registrar of this Court be supplied to the parties herein on undertaking to apply for the certified copy of the same immediately. Kalidas Mukherjee, J.: I agree. Later: (30) AFTER pronouncement of the judgment, Mr. (29) LET xerox copies of this judgment duly countersigned by the Assistant registrar of this Court be supplied to the parties herein on undertaking to apply for the certified copy of the same immediately. Kalidas Mukherjee, J.: I agree. Later: (30) AFTER pronouncement of the judgment, Mr. Kalimuddin Mondal, the learned Counsel representing the Bharat Coking Coal Limited, prays for stay of the operation of the said judgment and order. We find no reason to grant such stay. (31) ACCORDINGLY, the prayer for stay is refused.