JUDGMENT : SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, J. 1. Heard Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Miss Pooja Kumari, learned counsel for the respondent CCL. 2. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition for direction to pay monetary compensation to the petitioner in terms of Clause 9.5.0 of N.C.W.A. which was applicable at that time. 3. It is contended that the husband of the petitioner was appointed in CCL on 13.03.1973 and he died in harness on 03.02.1998. Mr. Manish Kumar appearing for the petitioner submits that there was dispute with regard to the identity of the petitioner as wife of deceased employee because one Chandmuni Devi has also claimed to be his wife. He further submitted that the petitioner was not paid gratuity then the petitioner filed application before the controlling authority for payment of gratuity before whom the first wife Chandmuni Devi appeared and filed an affidavit that she has left the company of her husband and thereafter she has married another man and if the gratuity is released in favour of this petitioner, she has got no objection and on the basis of that the gratuity amount has been released in favour of the petitioner. Mr. Kumar further submits that now there is no impediment when the affidavit filed by Chandmuni Devi is there and also taking into account that the gratuity amount has been released in favour of the petitioner. 4. On the other hand, Miss Pooja Kumari appearing for respondent CCL submits that there is no legal separation between Chandmuni Devi and Late Bihari Manjhi. She further submits that in view of N.C.W.A. the legally wedded wife is entitled for compassionate appointment or monetary compensation in lieu of compassionate appointment and as the petitioner is second wife of the deceased employee, she is not entitled for the monetary compensation. She has drawn the attention of this Court to Annexure-A to the counter affidavit which is the service excerpts of Late Bihari Manjhi in which the name of Chandmuni Devi is reflected as wife and as such petitioner is not entitled for payment of monetary compensation. She further submits that that application for monetary compensation was also not filed within time and the CCL has received it on 22.02.2014. To rebut this argument, Mr. She further submits that that application for monetary compensation was also not filed within time and the CCL has received it on 22.02.2014. To rebut this argument, Mr. Kumar submits that on the application made under Right to Information Act it has been provided that the application for monetary compensation was received by CCL on 12.01.2000 which is within time and as such he submits that the petitioner is entitled for monetary compensation in view of provisions of N.C.W.A. 5. Be that as it may, this Court, without going into the controversy of this case, remit the matter to the respondent No. 4, who in turn, shall examine the claim of the petitioner and shall take a decision within six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order taking into account that the gratuity amount has been released in favour of the petitioner and particularly the affidavit of Chandmuni Devi to the effect that she has got no objection if the gratuity amount is released in favour of the petitioner. 6. With the above observations and directions, this writ petition stands disposed of.