JUDGMENT : Rajesh Shankar, J. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner’s son namely, Shankar Kumar Turi since her husband died in harness on 16.12.2020 while posted as Pump Operator, Water Filter Plant at Dhori Area, Bokaro. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the respondents to pay all admissible retiral dues to the petitioner including the provident fund along with statutory interest which is lying in CMPF Account No. KGL36-369 in the office of the respondent no. 6 in the name of deceased husband of the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Birsa Turi – husband of the petitioner was a permanent employee of Central Coalfields Limited and was posted as T/R in Water Filter Plant at Dhori Area, Bokaro, who died in harness on 16.12.2020 at Muskan Hospital and Research Centre, Chas. He died leaving behind his widow i.e., the petitioner, one son – Shankar Kumar Turi and one daughter – Savitri Kumari, whose names appear in the service record. 3. It is further submitted that the names of the petitioner and her dependents also appear in PS-3 and PS-4 forms maintained by the respondents. After death of her husband, she made an application for compassionate appointment of her son namely, Shankar Kumar Turi on 03.03.2021 before the respondent no. 5 – the Staff Officer, (P & A), Central Coalfields Limited, Dhori Area, Bokaro. Pursuant to filing of the said application, the respondent authorities, instead of providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner’s son, issued letter to her on 12.02.2022 informing inter alia that she was not the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee for which an enquiry was to be conducted. In the meantime, the petitioner also requested the concerned authorities of the respondent-Central Coalfields Limited for payment of retiral dues including the amount of CMPF, however, the same were also not paid to her. Since the names of the petitioner as well as her dependents i.e., son and daughter were already mentioned in the service book and in the statutory forms of the deceased employee, there was no justified reason with the respondent authorities to conduct an enquiry merely based on complaint filed by a lady who also claimed herself to be the wife of the deceased employee. Under the said circumstance, the petitioner has been compelled to prefer the present writ petition. 4. Mrs. Debolina Sen Hirani, learned counsel for the respondents, while referring to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents, submits that after death of the petitioner’s husband and while the case of compassionate appointment of Shankar Kumar Turi was being examined, a complaint was received from one Gansi Devi on 20.02.2021 claiming herself to be the first wife of the deceased employee alleging that the petitioner was fraudulently trying to get the death-cum-retiral benefits of the deceased employee. On receipt of the said complaint, the respondent-company constituted a 3-Member Committee on 20.12.2021 itself which submitted the report on 30.06.2022 drawing the conclusion that it was the case of Late Birsa Turi having two wives. Under the said circumstance, the compassionate appointment was not provided to the petitioner’s son namely, Shankar Kumar Turi. The admissible amount of Gratuity of Late Birsa Turi i.e., Rs.14,87,218/- has been calculated and deposited before the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Hazaribagh vide letter no. 3319 dated 05.03.2022. So far as forwarding refund claim of CMPF as well as settlement of pension are concerned, the same have also not been processed due to filing of complaint by Gansi Devi. 5. The writ petition was earlier taken up on 02.04.2024 and on the said date, following order was passed : 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties for a while. 2. A counter affidavit has been field on behalf of the respondent-CCL on 16.01.2024, paragraph no. 13 of which reads as under: 13. That on receipt of the application, the service record of the deceased employee was verified and found that the dependent family members of the deceased employee are as follows: As per Service Book of deceased employee Late Birsa Turi: Sl. No. Name Relation Age as on 23.09.1988 1. Babulall Turi Father 46 years 2. Smt. Pariya Devi Mother 41 years 3. Lalldeo Turi Brother 15 years 4. Smt. Atwari Devi Wife 19 years As per PS-3 and PS-4 Form of deceased employee Late Birsa Turi: Sl. No. Name Relation Age as on 26.08.1990 1. Smt. Atwari Devi Wife 26 years 2. Shankar Kumar Turi Son 08 years 3. Savita Kumari Daughter 03 years 3. Smt. Pariya Devi Mother 41 years 3. Lalldeo Turi Brother 15 years 4. Smt. Atwari Devi Wife 19 years As per PS-3 and PS-4 Form of deceased employee Late Birsa Turi: Sl. No. Name Relation Age as on 26.08.1990 1. Smt. Atwari Devi Wife 26 years 2. Shankar Kumar Turi Son 08 years 3. Savita Kumari Daughter 03 years 3. On perusal of the family details of the deceased employee Late Birsa Turi mentioned hereinabove, it is evident that the petitioner has been shown to be his wife, whereas Shankar Kumar Turi has been shown as his son. 4. Under the said circumstance, it is not understood as to under which provision of law, an enquiry committee was constituted which submitted its report vide letter dated 30.06.2022 merely on the basis of an objection/complaint made by Ganshi Devi claiming herself to be wife of the deceased employee. 5. It is a well settled law that if the deceased employee has shown anyone as his legally wedded wife in his service book as well as other statutory records, she is legally entitled to receive the death-cum-retiral benefits after demise of the said employee. 6. Thus, it appears to the Court that the death-cum-retiral benefit of the petitioner as well as consideration of the claim of her son for compassionate appointment, whose name has also been mentioned in the service record, has illegally been withheld by the respondents. 7. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for a short adjournment to seek further instruction in the matter from the concerned authority of the respondents. 8. Considering the said prayer, put up this case under the same heading on 16.04.2024. 6. The conduct of the respondent authorities raises serious concern. Admittedly, the names of the petitioner, son – Shankar Kumar Turi and daughter – Savitri Kumari have been mentioned in the service book/statutory forms. Under the said circumstance, withholding of retiral benefits of the deceased employee and not paying the same to the petitioner by the respondent authorities appears to be highly arbitrary. Admittedly, the names of the petitioner, son – Shankar Kumar Turi and daughter – Savitri Kumari have been mentioned in the service book/statutory forms. Under the said circumstance, withholding of retiral benefits of the deceased employee and not paying the same to the petitioner by the respondent authorities appears to be highly arbitrary. Merely because a lady claimed herself to be the first wife of the deceased employee and filed a complaint before the respondents did not warrant any action to be taken by them in this regard, particularly considering that her name was not disclosed by the deceased employee in the service record/statutory forms, rather the concerned respondent authorities were required to verify the names of the dependents mentioned by the deceased employee during the service period in the concerned record i.e., the service book as well as the statutory forms and to proceed accordingly. 7. Under the said circumstance, this Court is of the view that withholding the death-cum-retiral benefits of the deceased employee and not making payment of the same to the petitioner is illegal. Moreover, keeping the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment of her son namely, Shankar Kumar Turi pending, also appear to be a colourable exercise of power. 8. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance, the concerned respondents are directed to forthwith make payment of admissible retiral benefits of Late Birsa Turi to the petitioner including the amount of Gratuity and CMPF. The respondents are also directed to immediately process the petitioner’s application seeking compassionate appointment of her son namely, Shankar Kumar Turi and to pass an appropriate order in this regard without any further delay. 9. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with aforesaid direction.