Judgment : Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record. 2. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on 03.12.2004 and an application seeking appointment on compassionate ground was submitted on 11.11.2005. As the claim of the petitioner was not decided, the petitioner approached this Court in W.P.(S) 2135 of 2012 which was disposed of by order dated 06.08.2012 directing the respondent to take a decision in the matter. Pursuant to order passed by this Court, the order dated 15.03.2013 has been passed which has been challenged by the petitioner in the present proceeding. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed stating as under : “12. That the answering respondents in order to ascertain the genunity and dependency of the applicant relies upon the service records of the deceased employee and wherein in any of the prescribed service records name of the applicant should appear for consideration of his/her case of compassionate appointment. 13. That the petitioner's name did not appear in the service book of the deceased employee. 14. That the deceased employee during his service period did not submit gratuity nomination form, CMPF Form 'A', pension form, LTC/LLTC form 'A' etc.” 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relying on the statement made in paragraph 14 of the counter-affidavit has submitted that since the husband of the petitioner did not submit necessary declaration, the name of the petitioner has not appeared in his service record. The learned counsel has thus, submitted that, merely because the name of the petitioner does not appear in the service record of the deceased-husband of the petitioner, the petitioner cannot be denied benefit of grant of compassionate appointment. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that, the rules of the company requires that appointment on compassionate ground would be offered to the dependents of the deceased-employee whose name appear in his/her service record. 6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has erroneously been rejected. Merely because the name of the petitioner does not appear in the service record of the deceased-employee, the claim of the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground could not have been rejected by the respondent-authority. Merely because the name of the petitioner does not appear in the service record of the deceased-employee, the claim of the petitioner for her appointment on compassionate ground could not have been rejected by the respondent-authority. The respondent-authority was required to afford opportunity to the petitioner to produce evidence in support of her claim, being wife of the deceased-employe. Since, the rejection of the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground would involved a determination of the status of the petitioner as wife, the respondent-authority was required in law to conduct an enquiry into the matter which admittedly has not been done in the present case. In so far as, the other claim for payment of retiral benefits is concerned, I do not find any illegality in the direction issued by the respondent-authority in order dated 15.03.2013. Accordingly, the writ petition is partly allowed with a direction to the respondent no. 5 to take a decision afresh, in so far as, the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is concerned. Petition partly allowed.