JUDGMENT Pramath Patnaik, J. – In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for direction upon the respondents to make payment of entire death-cum-retiral benefits of his deceased sister and further for direction upon the respondents to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that deceased sister of the petitioner during her service period executed a nomination Form "Kh" in which she has categorically mentioned that in case of her death, her brother the present petitioner, shall be entitled to receive death-cum-retiral benefits, which is approved by the competent authorities. It has further been submitted that it is settled principles of law that a person, who is nominated by a deceased-employee is fully entitled to receive the death-cum-retiral benefits. However when the benefits of death-cum-retiral benefits was not extended to the petitioner, due to lack of knowledge, he instead of approaching this Court, moved before Court below for obtaining Succession Certificate. It has been submitted that it is pertinent to mention here that in the proceeding of Succession Case, the husband of deceased employee appeared and filed a written consent that the petitioner is entitled to get full benefit of death-cum-retiral amount. It has further been submitted that deceased-employee was issue-less and now her husband has also died, hence, in the fact situation, otherwise also, petitioner is the only claimant. 3. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioner, in all fairness, submitted that case of the petitioner is squarely covered by the decision rendered by this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6142 of 2013 dated 02.07.2015, which has been affirmed in L.P.A No. 462 of 2015 dated 02.05.2016. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents-State submitted that the petitioner has not come with clean hand as initially he did not disclose that he had filed a Succession Case to obtain succession certificate and further her husband was still alive. However, learned counsel for the respondents fairly submitted that now husband of the petitioner is now dead and there is no issue out of their wedlock. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that so far prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is concerned brother of married lady does not come within the definition of claimant to get compassionate appointment, as per the prescribed rule. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that so far prayer of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is concerned brother of married lady does not come within the definition of claimant to get compassionate appointment, as per the prescribed rule. 5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and the decision rendered in W.P. (S) No.6142 of 2013, it would be apposite to dispose of the writ application with a direction to petitioner to file affidavit with necessary documents before competent authority within a period of four weeks and on receipt of such claim, the respondents-authorities shall consider the case of the petitioner keeping in view the relevant provision of Family Pension and relevant rules and take decision thereupon within a period of four weeks thereafter. 6. With the aforesaid directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.