ORDER : The petitioner in this writ application has challenged the reasoned order dated 15.11.2016 passed by the Project Officer, Muraidih, 20/21 P.T.T.S. Colliery, whereby complying with the order dated 16.09.2016 passed in W.P.(S) No.3292 of 2016, the claim for monetary compensation of this petitioner has been rejected on the ground that this petitioner is not the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee. 2. One Ram Sharan Pasi was an employee of Bharat Coking Coal Limited. He died in harness on 19.10.1997. The petitioner, being the wife, filed W.P.(S) No. 3292 of 2016 claiming compassionate appointment for her son and also for grant of monetary compensation. In the said writ application, it was held that no compassionate appointment can be granted, but a direction was given to the authorities of Bharat Coking Coal Limited to consider the claim of monetary compensation in terms of National Coal Wage Agreement. The said order dated 16th September, 2016, passed in the writ application, became final. Pursuant to the said order, the petitioner again made a representation claiming monetary compensation. The said representation dated 15.10.2016 was rejected by the impugned reasoned order dated 15.11.2016 on the ground that the petitioner is not the legally married wife of the deceased. 3. The detailed reasoned order has been brought on record as Annexure 6, which is under challenge. Since it is well settled principle of law that by filing a counter affidavit, a speaking order cannot be improved, modified, nor it can be supplemented, thus, it is not necessary to call for any counter affidavit in this case. Facts are admitted, and on the admitted facts the reasoned order is tested. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the legally married wife and her name appears in the service excerpts maintained by the Company showing her to be the wife. He further argues that some frivolous application was filed by one Sukhrani Devi claiming to be the wife of late Ram Sharan Pasi (deceased employee) and the B.C.C.L., basing on the said application, has arrived to the conclusion that the petitioner is not the legally married wife and has held that the marriage between the petitioner and the deceased is void. He lastly submits that the impugned order is absolutely bad and liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. He lastly submits that the impugned order is absolutely bad and liable to be set aside. 5. Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Bharat Coking Coal Limited supports the impugned order stating that the Company had received an application along with an affidavit from one Sukhrani Devi claiming to be the wife of the deceased and on that basis, the Company has reached to the conclusion that Sukhrani Devi is the wife and this petitioner is the second wife and the marriage between this petitioner and the deceased employee is void. He submits that this being the fact, petitioner is not entitled to get any relief. 6. I have heard the parties and gone through the records of the case and the impugned order. In the impugned order, B.C.C.L. has admitted that in the service excerpts recorded in the year 1987, this petitioner has been shown to be the wife of the deceased. This being so, admittedly, the records of the Company shows the petitioner to be the wife far back from 1987. From the impugned order, I find that one Sukhrani Devi filed an affidavit only on 22.07.1998 claiming herself to be the wife of the deceased. Except that application and self declaration, there is no other document to support such claim. The Company has taken cognizance of this affidavit and has concluded that this petitioner is, thus, the second wife and her marriage with the employee is void as per the Hindu Marriage Act. 7. It is surprising that when the Company maintained their own records showing this petitioner to be the wife of the deceased and the said record, atleast dates back to the year 1987, then how a simple application filed along with an affidavit in the year 1998 by a stranger is given credence. The Company should have given weightage and credence to their own records, which was opened far back in the year 1987 showing this petitioner to be the wife of the deceased workman. Further, basing on the said application of Sukhrani Devi, the Project Officer has come to a conclusion and has declared the marriage between Santoshi Devi (petitioner) and deceased Ram Sharan Pasi as void as per Hindu Marriage Act. This action of the Project Officer is erroneous and is deprecated. Further, basing on the said application of Sukhrani Devi, the Project Officer has come to a conclusion and has declared the marriage between Santoshi Devi (petitioner) and deceased Ram Sharan Pasi as void as per Hindu Marriage Act. This action of the Project Officer is erroneous and is deprecated. A Project Officer of a Company, has got no jurisdiction or authority to declare marriage between two persons as void. A marriage between two hindu persons can be declared void only by a competent Court of jurisdiction and not by any Officer of a Company as per his own whims. I further find that after the death of the deceased, a letter was also written by the Company, Bharat Coking Coal Limited, on 08/16.08.2000 recommending monetary compensation in favour of this petitioner showing her to be the widow of Ram Sharan Pasi. This letter is at Annexure 3 to this writ application, which is signed by one of the General Managers of the Company. This letter also suggests that way back in the year 2000, this petitioner was acknowledged to be the widow of the deceased. This being so, the impugned order passed by the Project Officer is absolutely erroneous and has got no legs to stand. The same has been passed on mere whims and is illegal, which cannot be accepted. 8. Thus, the impugned order dated 15.11.2016, as contained in memo No.1337 passed by the Project Officer, Muraidih 20/21 P.T.T.S. Colliery, Bharat Coking Coal Limited is hereby quashed and set aside. The respondent Company is directed to pay the monetary compensation to the petitioner Santoshi Devi, strictly as per National Coal Wage Agreement. The arrears, if any, should also be paid to her at the rate so fixed from time to time by the Company. 9. After analysing the impugned order and the reasons given above, I come to a conclusion that the impugned order has been passed only to harass the petitioner. A helpless widow was made to suffer unnecessarily, for which she must be compensated. Thus, this Court imposes a cost of Rs.15,000/- to be paid by Bharat Coking Coal Limited to the petitioner. The entire payment, i.e., arrears of monetary compensation and the cost should be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within a month from receipt of the copy of this order. Thus, this Court imposes a cost of Rs.15,000/- to be paid by Bharat Coking Coal Limited to the petitioner. The entire payment, i.e., arrears of monetary compensation and the cost should be calculated and disbursed to the petitioner within a month from receipt of the copy of this order. Further monetary compensation as per National Coal Wage Agreement should be paid to the petitioner on monthly basis till the period she is entitled to receive the same. 10. With these directions and observations, this writ application stands allowed.