JUDGMENT : B.P. Dharmadhikari, J. Nobody for the petitioner and the respondents. 2. The petitioner a widow, aged about 38 years on 18.04.2002 is before this Court seeking a direction to employer of her husband to presume that her husband retired on superannuation and to pay all his benefits accordingly to her. She claims that her husband viz. Satish Prabhakar Mulkar had put in about 20 years of service with the respondents at the time of his death on 29.12.2000. The other direction sought is to provide her compassionate employment. 3. This Court admitted the matter on 28.08.2003. Notice earlier was issued on 23.09.2002. Thus, the matter is pending with this Court since last 15 years. 4. Respondent No. 1 – Maharashtra State Khadi and Village Industries Board, has filed reply and pointed out that husband – Satish was never employed by it and was not working with it. It has claimed that Respondent No. 2 – Maharashtra Khadi Gramoudyog Madyawarti Sangh is an independent authority with which it has no concern and it does not in any way control working of Respondent No. 2. Thus, submissions filed by Respondent No. 1 are received by the petitioner on 28.01.2003 and thereafter the petitioner has not taken any steps in the matter. With the result, we have to accept the contention that Satish was not working with Respondent No. 1. His employer viz., Respondent No. 2 has chosen not to appear. 5. The record shows that the petitioner has, before approaching this Court, made a representation on 22.01.2001 to Respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 has given reply to it on 11.04.2001 through its Advocate. Respondent No. 2 has pointed out that it has to recover some amount from the deceased husband. It has further stated that after his death, the petitioner was liable to pay that amount. The petitioner was, therefore, advised to contact the Secretary of Respondent No. 2 – Institution. Respondent No. 2 has also stated that there is no provision for grant of employment on compassionate ground and as such her request therefor cannot be looked into. After receipt of this reply dated 11.04.2001, the present petition has been filed on 02.05.2002. Along with the petition, no documents are placed to show that Respondent No. 2 has any provision for grant of compassionate employment. After receipt of this reply dated 11.04.2001, the present petition has been filed on 02.05.2002. Along with the petition, no documents are placed to show that Respondent No. 2 has any provision for grant of compassionate employment. In Writ Petition also no notification or policy decision or rules in this respect are pointed out. No previous instance in which compassionate employment has been granted to anybody has been pointed out. 6. We, therefore, find that even claim for compassionate employment cannot be looked into in present matter. However, the service rendered by the deceased Satish for respondent No. 2 is not in dispute. His service is long enough to qualify him to claim gratuity and provident fund. There may also be some other serving benefits. In paragraph 3 of writ petition, the petitioner states that she has applied for monetary funds such as Provident Fund and Gratuity on 21.01.2001 itself. The petition does not show that such amounts are paid by Respondent No. 2 to her. 7. In reply dated 11.04.2001, respondent No. 2 has claimed total an amount of Rs.70,333.67 ps. as due and recoverable from the deceased Satish. The amount can be recovered in accordance with law by Respondent No. 2 if it is due and recoverable. However, Gratuity and provident fund amount cannot be withheld for this purpose. 8. We, therefore, direct Respondent No. 2 to determine the amount of gratuity and provident fund payable to the deceased Satish as on 29.12.2000 and to pay to his legal heirs. The legal heirs shall also be paid interest on the amount so worked out, as per Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and the Employees Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952. This direction shall be complied with within four months from today. 9. Writ Petition is thus partly allowed and disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs. 10. The petitioner to communicate this order to Respondent No. 2.