JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter-alia prayed for direction commanding upon the respondents for payment of all retiral dues like gratuity, leave encashment, group insurance, G.P.F. and fixation of family pension and for payment of all other consequential benefits with statutory interest thereon and to consider the appointment of the son of petitioner on compassionate ground forthwith, on account of death of wife of the petitioner, who died in harness on 08.01.2011 while posted as Nurse Grade-A in Rajendra Institute of Medical Science, Ranchi. 2. The brief facts as disclosed in the writ application is that the wife of the petitioner namely B. Kandulna @ Baha Mani Kandulna was employed as Nurse Grade-A in Rajendra Institute of Medical Science, Ranchi. She died in harness on 08.01.2011 leaving behind her husband, the petitioner and two Children namely Anurag Topno and Anshu Topno. The petitioner filed representations before the respondent no.3 for payment of post retiral benefits and for appointment on compassionate ground to his son vide Annexure-4 series to the writ application. 3. Mr. K. K. Ambastha, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the petitioner being husband of the deceased wife is entitled to post retirement benefits as per circular vide Annexure-3 to the writ application. 4. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 has submitted that the wife of the petitioner was suffering from Beta Thallasemia (A disease of blood) and had undergone treatment at C.M.C. Vellore as evident from Annexure-A series to the counter-affidavit. During service period, late B. Kandulna @ Baha Mani Kandulna nominated her son Anurag Topno, 18 years and daughter Anshu Topno 7 years, for financial benefits and other such benefits through applications dated 07.10.2008 and 07.10.2010 as per Annexure-B to the counter-affidavit. But no application has been received till date either from her son Anurag Topno or daughter Anshu Topno for payment of due amount. It has further been submitted that an application has been received from Sri Mahsidas Topno who is said to be the brother of late B. Kandulna on 09.04.2011 alleging that the petitioner has married to another girl namely Amlen 3-4 years ago and also has got a son from that newly married wife. He also alleged that due to that new marriage, B. Kandulna @ Baha Mani Kandulna was under mental tension which led to her death. He also alleged that due to that new marriage, B. Kandulna @ Baha Mani Kandulna was under mental tension which led to her death. He has also claimed to give all financial and other benefits to Anurag Topno and Anshu Topno. He also states that he along with his mother and brothers are looking after the mentally handicapped son and minor daughter of B. Kandulna. The father of handicapped son and minor daughter has abandoned them and got married with another girl namely Amlen and living separately and the petitioner be debarred from getting the monetary and other benefits as he has abandoned the children as per Annexure-C to the counter-affidavit. It has further been submitted that during her life time, B. Kandulna had given an application stating that after her death, the due monetary benefits be given in proportion of 50% each to son and daughter and in absence of son, to the daughter Anshu Topno. The petitioner had given information about the death of his wife along with no dues certificate from RIMS Ranchi, to the establishment section of RIMS Ranchi to the establishment section of RIMS Ranchi on 06.02.2012 as per Annexure-D to the Counter-affidavit. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted an application on 06.09.2012 claiming all the financial benefits and pension after death of his wife late B. Kandulna to him although his name has not been mentioned in the nominee form as per Annexure-E to the counter-affidavit. 5. Mr. Dheeraj Kumar, J.C to G.A., learned counsel for the respondent no.4 by referring para-9 to the counter-affidavit has submitted that the payment of GPF of Late Baha Mani Kandulna, the details of the deduction along with the application for final withdrawal duly forwarded by the Director, RIMS, Ranchi have not been made available to the office of the answering respondent and hence, the GPF amount has not been paid to the petitioner. It has further been submitted that the details of receipt along with application for final withdrawal of late Baha Mani Kandulna be filed, so that necessary action to ensure payment of G.P.F to the legal heir of the late employee could be taken. 6. It has further been submitted that the details of receipt along with application for final withdrawal of late Baha Mani Kandulna be filed, so that necessary action to ensure payment of G.P.F to the legal heir of the late employee could be taken. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit bringing out the death of the son of petitioner namely Anurag Topno who died on 17.12.2013 and drawing attention for appointment of Anshu Topno on compassionate ground, the copy of the death certificate has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also filed rejoinder to the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent no.3 stating therein that the nomination does create the right of the property. The nominated person has only right to receive the money. In the instant case the daughter of the deceased employee is still minor, therefore, daughter of the petitioner did not file any representation before the concerned respondent for payment of retiral dues and son of the petitioner has died on 17.12.2013. The petitioner is also one of legal heir of the deceased employee and, as such, the petitioner is entitled to receive the retiral benefits of his wife and the petitioner has denied the factum of second marriage. 7. After hearing the counsel for the respective parties at length and on perusal of the records, it appears that the writ petition is replete with disputed question of fact and the said fact cannot be adjudicated in the writ application. Therefore, in my considered view the relief/claim by the petitioner is not legally tenable and therefore, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. However, the dismissal of the writ application shall not stand as an impediment for respondents to disburse the admissible post retiral benefits to the legal heirs/rightful claimant of the deceased employee in accordance with law. Petition dismissed.