JUDGMENT & ORDER : 1. Heard Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.291 of 2017 and Mr. K.N. Bhattacharji, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. S. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.594 of 2017 whereas Mr. A.L. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the respondents-Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited, the ONGC in short. 2. These writ petitions being W.P.(C) No.291 of 2017 [Sri Arpan Chakraborty vs. the ONGC & others] and W.P.(C) No.594 of 2017 [Mrs. Rita Chakraborty vs. the ONGC & others] are consolidated for disposal by a common judgment for the simple reason that the claim and the counter claim as projected in the writ petitions by the petitioners have emerged for the death of one Debdas Chakraborty who was working as the Deputy Superintending Engineer [Drilling] in the ONGC. The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.291 of 2017 [Sri Arpan Chakraborty] is the son of the said deceased officer and by means of his writ petition, he has urged this court for directing the ONGC-respondents to provide him the employment under the compassionate appointment scheme for death of his father. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.594 of 2017 is the widow of the deceased officer and by means of her writ petition, she has also urged this court for directing the ONGC respondents to declare that they are liable to pay to her the balance amount of Rs. 18,44,883/- [Rupees Eighteen lakhs Forty Four thousand Eight Hundred Eighty Three] in terms of the order dated 14.06.2016 as delivered in W.P.(C) No.566 of 2015. She has also urged this court to impose interest on the said balance amount @12% from the date of the said order dated 14.06.2016 till the date of payment. She has urged this court for declaring that she is alone entitled to get the entire proceeds of Employees Pension Scheme, the EPS in short, for death of her husband. She has also urged that she is also entitled to get the compassionate appointment under the said scheme commensurate to her qualification and experience. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.291 of 2017 was the co-petitioner in the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) No.566 of 2015 along with his sister namely, Arpita Chakraborty [Kundu]. In that writ petition, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.594 of 2017 was the respondent. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.291 of 2017 was the co-petitioner in the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) No.566 of 2015 along with his sister namely, Arpita Chakraborty [Kundu]. In that writ petition, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.594 of 2017 was the respondent. The said writ petition was confined to apportionment of the entitlements amongst the legal heirs or the statutory successors of the deceased officer, meaning both the writ petitioners and Smt. Arpita Chakraborty [Kundu], the co-petitioner in W.P.(C) No.566 of 2015. In the said order dated 14.06.2016, a Division Bench of this court has observed as under: “3. There is no dispute at the Bar that the petitioners as well as the private respondent are entitled to 1/3rd share of the aforesaid total sum. The breakups of the aforesaid entitlements are as follows:- Sl. No. Head Estimated amounts to be paid I Group Leave Encashment scheme Rs.10.00.000.00 Ii Group Life Insurance Rs.3,62,000.00 Iii Composite Social Security Scheme Rs.40,00,000.00 Iv Contributory Provident Fund (CPF) Rs.34,15,498.00 V Post Retirement Benefit Scheme (PRBS) Rs.32,10,810.00 Vi Employees Pension Scheme The calculation and disbursement of EPS Pension to members is being done by Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) Vii Good Health (HPL) Encashment Rs.3,62,934.83 Viii EL Encashment Rs.11,461.00 Ix Compensation under Employees Compensation Act Rs.4,98,800.00 X Salary of August 2015 Rs.1,32,584.00 Xi Gratuity Rs.10,00,000.00 4. As the petitioners as well as the respondent No.4 are entitled to 1/3rd share of the aforesaid amount, their respective share would come to Rs. 44,98,429.33, out of which, the amount already received by the respondent No.4, i.e. Rs. 10,00,000 shall stand deducted. Therefore, the petitioner No.1 and the petitioner No.2 shall be entitled to receive Rs. 44,98,429.33 each while the respondent No.4 will be entitled to Rs. 34,98,429.33 i.e. after deducting Rs. 10,00,000/- already paid to her. Insofar as the Employees Pension Scheme is concerned, the petitioners No.1 and 2 are also entitled to receive 1/3rd of their respective shares till they attain the age of 25 years.” 3. Finally, by the order dated 14.06.2016, the ONGC-respondents were directed to (a) pay and deposit a sum of Rs. 44,98,429.33 in the account of the petitioner No.1 [Smt. Arpita Chakraborty (Kundu)] maintained by her with Punjab National Bank, Panihati, Sodepur Branch bearing No.6211000100056758- IFS Code-PUNB0621100; (b) pay and deposit another sum of Rs. Finally, by the order dated 14.06.2016, the ONGC-respondents were directed to (a) pay and deposit a sum of Rs. 44,98,429.33 in the account of the petitioner No.1 [Smt. Arpita Chakraborty (Kundu)] maintained by her with Punjab National Bank, Panihati, Sodepur Branch bearing No.6211000100056758- IFS Code-PUNB0621100; (b) pay and deposit another sum of Rs. 44,98,429.33 in the account of the petitioner No.2 [Sri Arpan Chakraborty, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.291 of 2017] maintained by him with HB Town (Sodepur) Branch of the State Bank of India bearing No.20222733742-IFS Code-SBIN0007654. For the respondent No.4, the department ONGC had directed to release her share amounting to a sum of Rs. 34,98,429.33 to her as and when she approaches them. For remittance a time limit was fixed by the court that the disbursement shall be made to the petitioner Nos.1 and 2 within 6(six) weeks from the date of receipt of the said order. By another direction, it was made clear that 1/3rd share of the petitioners No.1 and 2 in respect of the Employees Pension Scheme shall be calculated and disbursed by the Employees Provident Fund Organization and deposited the same in the said bank accounts of the petitioners without any loss of time. 4. In this regard, it is to be noted that the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.594 of 2017, the respondent No.4 of the earlier writ petition being W.P.(C) No.566 of 2015 had accepted Rs. 10,00,000/-. It has been pointed out at that Bar that the said amount as recorded in the said order dated 14.06.2016 to be share of the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.594 of 2017 [Smt. Rita Chakraborty] has been wrongly recorded as Rs. 34,98,429.33. The said amount shall be Rs. 44,984,29.33 without the EPS proceeds. This submission emanates from incorrect reading of the said judgment. In that judgment, it has been clearly spelt out that the share of the said petitioner namely, Smt. Rita Chakraborty was entitled to Rs.44,984,29.33 but as she had been allowed to withdraw a sum of Rs.10,00,000.00 as advance, that amount shall stand deducted from her share. 5. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.291 of 2017 has fervently urged this court that the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.594 of 2017 has raised objection by contending that the compassionate appointment should be made in her favour. That was not considered by the ONGC-respondents as yet. 5. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.291 of 2017 has fervently urged this court that the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.594 of 2017 has raised objection by contending that the compassionate appointment should be made in her favour. That was not considered by the ONGC-respondents as yet. According to the said petitioner, the compassionate appointment is regulated by the office order No.59 of 2006 under No.103(135)/06/CP dated 10.10.2006, Annexure-1 to the reply filed by the ONGC-respondents in W.P.(C) No.594 of 2017, wherefrom it would appear that the grant of employment assistance to the dependant of an employee who dies/suffers permanent total disability due to accident while on duty, after implementation of Composite Social Security Scheme, the CSSS in short, in ONGC, was considered by the executive committee in its 298th meeting held on 17.08.2006 at New Delhi and it was decided to introduce Employment Assistance Scheme in ONGC under which one dependent member of an employee who dies due to accident while on duty or as a result of insurgency or extremist/terrorist attack or suffers permanent total disability and leaves his family in financial distress, shall be considered for employment in the ONGC for rehabilitation of the family, subject to availability of vacancy and possession of the prescribed qualifications and age requirements. That apart, the following conditions are also conformed to: (a) Death/permanent total disability has occurred in a work related accident and had happened at work place, while on duty; OR (b) Death/permanent total disability has occurred due to insurgency/extremist activities. (c) There is evident actual financial distress and no other member of the family is employed in the ONGC or in any other organisation, government, Private or Public sector; It has been also pointed out at the Bar that the Clause 3 of the said order dated 10.10.2006, Annexure-1 to the reply filed by the ONGC-respondents in W.P.(C) No.594 of 2017 has defined the dependant family members for purpose of that scheme. It has been provided in the Clause 2 of the said office order as follows: “Dependant family member” for this purpose would mean one of the following members of the family seriatim of an employee, who dies due to accident while on duty or as a result of insurgency or terrorist/extremist attack during the course of his official duty of the Corporation or suffers permanent total disability while performing duty: (a) Un-employed spouse; (b) Un-employed son or un-married daughter or dependent divorced daughter; (c) Un-employed totally dependent widowed daughter.” It has been also clarified in Clause 3 as under: “That term ‘son’ and ‘daughter’ will also include legally adopted children eligible for employment provided the adoption took place before attaining the age of 10 years by the child.” 6. Mr. Somik Deb, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.291 of 2017 has fairly submitted that in the order dated 14.06.2016 what has been observed by this court is contrary to the provisions of law as only the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.594 of 2017 being the wife of the deceased officer is entitled to get the entire proceed of the EPS. In absence of the widow, the children’s claim would only come. Since the widow of the deceased officer is still alive, therefore, the children cannot have any claim over that EPS proceed. As such, the entire proceeds of the EPS shall go to the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.594 of 2017. The ONGC-respondents are, therefore, directed to take necessary steps for release of the said benefit by the EPF Commissioner in accordance with the rules. The writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.594 of 2017 shall cooperate with the ONGC-respondents in this regard so that the necessary process can be completed within a period of 6[six] weeks from the date when the ONGC-respondents shall receive a copy of this order. It is made clear that if for non-cooperation of the writ petitioner of W.P.(C) No.594 of 2017, the ONGC-respondents cannot proceed for disbursal of the EPS proceeds, the ONGC-respondents shall not be blamed and no action against them would also be entertained. 7. The ONGC-respondents in their reply filed in W.P.(C) No.291 of 2017 have clearly given an entitlement accounts in respect of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.291 of 2017. Mr. 7. The ONGC-respondents in their reply filed in W.P.(C) No.291 of 2017 have clearly given an entitlement accounts in respect of the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.291 of 2017. Mr. Deb, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.291 of 2017 has not questioned the correctness of the said account. Therefore, the ONGC-respondents are directed to make payment of the remaining amount in due time inasmuch as the amount that was entitled now to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.291 of 2017 has been transferred to the account of the said petitioner. Some other amount may be entitled to the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.291 of 2017 on completion of required exercise. For this purpose, the petitioner shall cooperate with the ONGC-respondents. So far the amount of CSSS is concerned, the first instalment is already been paid. The remaining instalments would be paid in every year spanning for a period of 5[five] years. Therefore, no direction in this regard is necessary. But the amount from the Post Retirement Benefit Scheme, the PRBS in short, the PRBS annuity and PRBS commutation are concerned, those are to be paid to the petitioner within a period of 6[six] weeks from the date when the ONGC-respondents would receive the copy of this order and for this purpose, the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.291 of 2017 shall file the necessary option to the ONGC-respondents. Since it has been shown that the accrual from the CPF and CSSS first instalment has already been paid, no fresh direction in this regard is required. The ONGC-respondents shall also follow the same steps for the purpose of disbursement of the similar encashment/accumulation under the various heads of account in respect of the daughter of the deceased officer, namely Smt. Arpita Chakraborty [Kundu] and the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.594 of 2017, the widow of the deceased officer. 8. So far the compassionate appointment is concerned, both the writ petitioners have urged for their claims and they are at loggerheads despite indications made to the learned counsel for the writ petitioners. It appears that they are not going to conciliate the matter giving a preference over other. As a result, the ONGC-respondents have to be guided wholly by their own scheme. It appears that they are not going to conciliate the matter giving a preference over other. As a result, the ONGC-respondents have to be guided wholly by their own scheme. Therefore, the ONGC-respondents are directed to consider both the writ petitioners for purpose of compassionate appointment as it has been provided that the suitability will be determined by a selection committee as per rules, subject to the conformity to the other requirements. Even though there is no preferential order in the definition provided in the Clause 2 of the officer dated 10.10.2016, Annexure-1 to the reply filed by the ONGC-respondents in W.P.(C) No.594 of 2017, but there is an indication of preference when in the said clause the word ‘seriatim’ has been deployed. Therefore, at first, suitability of the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.594 of 2017 [Smt. Rita Chakraborty] shall be considered by the selection committee and if it is found that she is not suitable for not fulfilling any of the conditions of the scheme, the ONGC-respondents shall not discard the process but shall consider the writ petitioner in W.P.(C) No.291 of 2017 as it appears to this court that he is suitable for the job under the ONGC. The entire exercise shall be completed within 6[six] months from the date of receipt of the copy of this order and there shall be no further extension for this purpose. The petitioners are directed to produce a copy of this order to the ONGC-respondents immediately for initiating the process in terms of the direction as made above. 9. Mr. A.L. Saha, learned counsel appearing for the ONGC-respondents has provided a commendable assistance to this court in this matter and he has clearly stated that the ONGC-respondents shall take a decision in accordance with the scheme and the person who would be selected by the selection committee would be given appointment for compassionate appointment against the available vacancy. Since a time bound direction has been given, it is expected that the ONGC-respondents shall make earnest efforts to comply the directions within the stipulated time. It goes without saying that any violation of this order be treated sternly by this court if it is brought to the notice of the court. 10. In terms of the above, these writ petitions are allowed to the extent as indicated above and disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.