JUDGMENT By Court.––The present petitioner has stepped into the shoes of the original petitioner, her father, who had filed the instant writ petition for cancellation of the appointment of the respondent no. 5, Rabindra Nath Banerjee. On the death of the original petitioner, his wife Bhakti Mukherjee was substituted and upon her death, the present petitioner Swapna Banerjee has been substituted, who in fact was the legally married wife of respondent no. 5, Rabindra Nath Banerjee till they separated by mutual consent through divorce decree dated 3.8.2005 in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 54 of 2005. The writ petition was preferred in the year 2000 by the father of the present petitioner alleging that the respondent no. 5, who had obtained appointment in lieu of the land lost by his father-in-law, i.e. the original petitioner, Binoy Krishna Mukherjee, had not been keeping his daughter i.e. the present petitioner alongwith him and had violated the terms and conditions of such employment in lieu of the land acquisition of the original petitioner. 2. The relevant factual matrix of the instant case are briefly noticed hereinunder. On the proposal of the land loser i.e. father of the present petitioner, the respondent-BCCL approved one employment in favour of the respondent no. 5 on 19.5.1992 as he was proposed son-in-law of the said Binoy Krishna Mukherjee. The marriage of the present petitioner (hereinafter referred as the petitioner) with the respondent no. 5 took place on 14.6.1992. They registered their marriage on 3.7.1992. The respondent no. 5 got an employment in lieu of the land lost by the father of the petitioner on 12.8.1992 and he joined as General Mazdoor Loader on 14.8.1992. The respondent no. 5 is alleged to have left the petitioner after completion of one year of probation of his service on 2.10.1993. Thereafter ensued series of representations made on behalf of the father of the present petitioner to the respondent-BCCL i.e. the employer for enquiring into the matter and also cancelling the appointment of the respondent no. 5 having failed to maintain the present petitioner as wife despite such undertaking given for taking the employment in lieu of the land that was acquired by the BCCL. It is relevant to state that the finding in the report of the employer that the respondent no. 5 having failed to maintain the present petitioner as wife despite such undertaking given for taking the employment in lieu of the land that was acquired by the BCCL. It is relevant to state that the finding in the report of the employer that the respondent no. 5 and the petitioner were not staying together were also corroborated by the litigation that ensued between the parties which started from 1993 onwards. The respondent no. 5, instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being Matrimonial Title Suit No. 94 of 1993/ 206 of 1995 which was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 1.9.1999. The petitioner's appeal preferred against the said decree before the High Court in First Appeal No. 109 of 1999(R) was dismissed on 8.2.2002. Her SLP preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed on 22.9.2003. The respondent no. 5, thereafter preferred a Matrimonial Title Suit seeking divorce on the ground that there was no restitution of conjugal rights between the husband and the petitioner-wife for more than two years despite the decree passed by the Court earlier. The said divorce suit was decreed on mutual consent between the parties on 3.8.2005. The petitioner had also filed the maintenance case being M.P. Case No.8 of 2005 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. which was disposed of vide order dated 3.8.2005. Under the decree passed in the title suit and under the proceeding in the maintenance case, the respondent no. 5 was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1,800/- per month as maintenance alongwith a sum of Rs. One Lac as alimony. Thereafter, the petitioner has been getting maintenance per month since August, 2005 and she has also got a sum of Rs. One Lac. However, the petitioner has also preferred a Criminal Miscellaneous case for enhancement of maintenance amount under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. being Cr. Misc. No. 49 of 2011 which is still pending before the Competent Court. In the aforesaid chronology of facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is pressed on behalf of the petitioner where cancellation of appointment of the respondent no. 5 has been sought for alleging violation of the terms and conditions under which he was employed i.e. in lieu of land acquired of the petitioner's father at the relevant point of time. 3. Learned Sr. 5 has been sought for alleging violation of the terms and conditions under which he was employed i.e. in lieu of land acquired of the petitioner's father at the relevant point of time. 3. Learned Sr. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's father and mother, both have died and she is now left alone after the decree of divorce granted in the matrimonial title suit filed by the respondent no. 5 and she has no one else to take care of. She being a lady is in need of sustenance and the respondent no. 5 has not only taken away the employment but only paltry maintenance is being paid, which may in the alternative be enhanced by this Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submits that the story of unhappy matrimonial life is evident from the chronology of facts as the respondent no. 5 himself sought for restitution of conjugal rights after the petitioner's started playing truant immediately after one year of her marriage, by institution of suit for restitution of conjugal rights in the year 1993 itself. Even though, the Trial Court decreed the suit in his favour and was unsuccessfully challenged till the Supreme Court, but the petitioner never chose to live with the respondent no. 5. This ultimately led to the institution of the divorce suit, which was decreed with the mutual consent. He has also paid the alimony of one lac rupees and is paying monthly maintenance @ Rs. 1,800/- per month as directed. The respondent no. 5 has also married for the second time and having children borne out of the 2nd wedlock. In such circumstances, the respondent no. 5 cannot be blamed for not living with the petitioner and at this stage, the petitioner cannot be allowed to allege that the respondent no. 5 is solely responsible for living separately from her and also violating the terms and conditions of the employment granted at the relevant point of time in lieu of the land acquired from the petitioner's father. 5. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 is solely responsible for living separately from her and also violating the terms and conditions of the employment granted at the relevant point of time in lieu of the land acquired from the petitioner's father. 5. In such circumstances, learned counsel for the respondent no. 5 submits that the petitioner having already invoked the jurisdiction of Competent Court for enhancement of maintenance, any further order need not be passed in the present case neither any case is made out for cancellation of the appointment of the respondent no. 5. The respondent no. 5 admittedly has not been alleged to have committed any misconduct in service after having remained in permanent service for more than 20 years by now and his services cannot be terminated in such a manner as sought for by the petitioner without any established misconduct on his part under the service Rules which governs his service conditions. 6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on records. The history of the litigation, which has been narrated in some length in the previous part of the judgment is only a reflection of the story of unsuccessful marriage between the petitioner-wife and the respondent no. 5 which ultimately led to their divorce with their mutual consent. In writ proceeding, however, in the circumstances since the parties have consciously chosen to dissolve their marriage by mutual consent, this Court is neither required to make any comment upon the fault of either of the parties in not living in conjugal life after their marriage and after the employment given to the respondent no. 5 in lieu of the land lost by the petitioner's father, nor is inclined to do so. In any case, the matrimonial Court has decreed the suit and granted alimony of Rs. 1 Lakh as well as maintenance in favour of the petitioner @ Rs. 1,800/- per month. However, in the present case other question which is striking the conscience of the Court is the circumstances in which, the father of the petitioner agreed to the proposal for granting employment to the respondent no. 5 on the loss of his land acquired by the BCCL with the hope that the respondent no. 5 would be taking care of his family as well as present petitioner-his wife. The marriage of the petitioner alongwith the respondent no. 5 on the loss of his land acquired by the BCCL with the hope that the respondent no. 5 would be taking care of his family as well as present petitioner-his wife. The marriage of the petitioner alongwith the respondent no. 5 though may have failed but the responsibility arising out of the employment of the respondent no. 5 in lieu of the land lost by the petitioner's father, however, cannot also be easily shrugged aside. In any case, the analogy in relation to the consideration for grant of compassionate appointment can be drawn in the present case where employment has been given in lieu of the land lost by the petitioner's father. It was the responsibility upon the respondent no. 5 to maintain the family independent of the marriage of the respondent no. 5 with the petitioner. That responsibility, however, cannot be said to have been forsaken on account of divorce decreed between the parties which may have precipitated on account of many other reasons arising in case of an unsuccessful marriage. The petitioner obviously has been rendered destitute, losing both her parents and also the only string of sustenance which could be possible by way of continuation of conjugal life with the respondent no. 5. A sum of Rs. 1,800/- per month, which is being paid by way of maintenance by the matrimonial Court, in any case, in the existing state of economy in the present date, cannot be said to suffice to maintain the petitioner. The respondent no. 5 also at the same time has contracted second marriage and has children borne out of the wedlock. At this stage even if the marriage of the petitioner has failed, this Court would be loathe to cancel the appointment of the respondent no. 5 as it would also render the other dependents of the respondent no. 5 destitute and on road. A fine balance has to be struck in such circumstances, so that the petitioner may not be made to suffer as her father has lost land in the year 1992, which resulted in the appointment of the respondent no. 5. 7. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board vs. U.P. Bizali Karamchari Sangh and Anr. 5. 7. The petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of U.P. State Electricity Board vs. U.P. Bizali Karamchari Sangh and Anr. reported in (1997)11 SCC 372 , to submit that in such circumstances, though the termination of the service of the employee was set aside and he was reinstated, but the employee who had obtained compassionate appointment on account of death of bread earner of the family, being a nephew of the deceased employee, was directed to make payment of 1/3rd of the back and future wages to the deceased employee's wife. The said judgment has also been referred in the Division Bench Judgment of the Patna High Court in the case of Shyam Sunderi Devi vs. State of Bihar reported in (2001) 1 PLJR 272 where also an amount of 20% of the salary of the employee who had obtained compassionate appointment was directed to be deducted per month and paid to the appellant i.e. the first wife of the deceased employee till her lifetime. 8. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, interest of justice would be served if an order is issued that 1/3rd of the salary of the respondent no. 5 every month be paid in favour of the petitioner till her lifetime after deduction of the maintenance of Rs. 1,800/- per month which is being granted in her favour pursuant to the directions issued in the proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. by the Competent Court. Accordingly, the respondent no. 5 shall make payment which would start within a period of 8, weeks from the receipt of the copy of this order. The respondent-BCCL i.e. employer is directed to ensure the same. 9. In view of the aforesaid order made, this Court, in the circumstances discussed hereinabove, is not inclined to accept the original prayer of the petitioner that appointment of respondent no. 5 should be cancelled for the alleged violation of the terms and conditions under which the employment was given in the year 1992. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner at the end raised the plea that some direction may be issued in respect of apportionment of the retirement dues of the respondent no. 5 to the petitioner on his superannuation. 5 should be cancelled for the alleged violation of the terms and conditions under which the employment was given in the year 1992. 10. Learned counsel for petitioner at the end raised the plea that some direction may be issued in respect of apportionment of the retirement dues of the respondent no. 5 to the petitioner on his superannuation. That eventuality on the happening of a future event may be dependant upon the likelihood of the survival of either of the parties and so many factors. This Court, at this stage is not inclined to pass any such direction for apportionment of the pest retirement dues of the respondent no. 5. This question is left open at this stage. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.