JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. - In the instant writ application, the petitioners who are the legal heirs being daughter and wife of the deceased employee late Gokul Gagrai under the Respondent No. 1, have sought for direction upon the respondents for compassionate appointment and for payment of death-cum-retiral benefits in favour of the petitioners. 2. The short facts, that have been depicted in the writ petition, are that the late Gokul Gagrai, designed as R/M, was the permanent staff of the B.S.N.L. and during course of his employment, he was posted at different places. While in service, he died in harness as per the death certificate vide Annexure-1 to the writ petition. After death of the deceased-employee, the petitioner No. 1 filed representation before the authorities for appointment on compassionate ground and for release of death-cum-retiral dues in favour of the petitioner No. 2, as evident from Annexure-2 to the writ petition. Due to the stony silence and inaction on the part of the respondents, the petitioners left with no other alternative, have knocked the door of this Court for redressal of their grievances under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Heard Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Arbind Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the respondents. 4. Controverting the averments made in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, raising the question of maintainability on the ground of alternative remedy before the learned Central Administrative Tribunal Ranchi Circuit Bench. Further, it has been submitted that late Gokul Gagrai, son of late Soma Gagrai was employee of BSNL, whose Date of Birth is 17.04.1960 and appointed under Non-Executive cadres as Regular Mazdoor vide letter dated 16.08.1989 as per his service book. The deceased employee, late Gokul Gagrai has joined in Jamshedpur Telecom District on 27.06.2000 under SDOT Noamundi, West Singhbhum. As per the service records, details family members (Form III), Sub-Rule 54 (12) declared and submitted by the employee before death i.e., on 03.02.2007 itself shows Budhni Gagrai as wife, Ram Singh Gagrai as son and Parwati Gagrai as daughter. It has further been submitted that the petitioner No. 1 Parwati Gagrai, daughter of late Gokul Gagrai, who is married is not legally entitled for compassionate appointment. It has further been submitted that the petitioner No. 1 Parwati Gagrai, daughter of late Gokul Gagrai, who is married is not legally entitled for compassionate appointment. The other petitioner Sita Gagrai so-called wife of Late Gokul Gagrai has claimed that she is the first wife and her name is not entered into service book as per the complaint received. The department (BSNL) on receiving of complaint, several times issued letter to Gokul Gagrai, R/M with instruction to come this office and for rectification of anomalies, if any, but inspite of this the deceased employee written a letter 24.12.2009 declaring Budhni Gagrai as his wife. Under the above circumstances, the deceased employee himself declared Budhani Gagrai as a wife and a dispute regarding payment etc., arises due to nomination made by deceased employee and so-called wife being two claimants viz., Sita Gagrai, petitioner No. 2 and the Budhni Gagrai, respondent No. 2 and the letter dated 24.12.2009, 29.09.2009 and the application dated 07.09.2009 have been marked as Annexure-A series to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that the BSNL has no intention to withhold his retiral benefits rather settling the issue legally by submitting/calling for succession certificate. It has further been stated that during enquiry of vigilance and report submitted by vigilance officer, it has been ascertained that the petitioner No. 2 and the respondent No. 2 are own sisters and both are daughters of Lopo Hembrom of village-Bidri as per Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that due to dispute between two wives as claimants, the respondents had no alternative to act legally in the matter of release of funds and appointment prescribed in such cases and that is why the petitioners have been directed to produce the succession certificate from the competent court for release of the amount and other benefits. It has further been submitted that as per the B.S.N.L. guidelines regarding appointment to the dependent of the employee who died during the service will be considered in accordance with law. 5. In response to the statements made in the counter affidavit, reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, denying and disputing the statements made in the counter affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to inaction on the part of the respondents, petitioners have been subjected to untold harassment and miseries. 5. In response to the statements made in the counter affidavit, reply has been filed on behalf of the petitioners, denying and disputing the statements made in the counter affidavit. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that due to inaction on the part of the respondents, petitioners have been subjected to untold harassment and miseries. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the laches on the part of the respondents amounts to colourable exercise of power and the action of the respondents smacks of mala fide. 7. Learned counsel for the Respondents on the other hand has reiterated the submissions made in the counter affidavit and submits that in the absence of the succession certificate, no death-cum-retiral benefits can be apportioned between the two wives. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that since there has been dispute between the petitioner No. 2 and the respondent No. 2, being the two wives of the deceased-employee Gokul Gagrai, the respondent No. 1 could not settle the dispute so far as payment of post-retiral dues and death-cum-retirement benefits and for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. 8. Having bestowed my anxious consideration to the rivalised submissions and on perusal of the records, I deem it proper to direct the respondent No. 1 to consider the rival claims of the petitioners and the respondent No. 2 expeditiously in accordance with law and the decision taken thereon be communicated to the petitioners and the respondents without brooking any delay. The decision be taken by the Respondent No. 1 as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order. 9. With the aforesaid direction, the writ petition stands disposed of.