JUDGMENT :

Rajesh Kumar, J.

The matter was taken up through Video Conferencing. Learned counsels for the parties had no objection with it and submitted that the audio and video qualities are good.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents.

3. Both the cases are being heard together because the issues in both cases are inter-linked.

4. It is a family dispute between the parties. From perusal of records and argument of the parties, following facts emerges.

5. Sabitri Devi is a widow, who has two sons, namely, Late Tulsi Das and Jainandan @ Raju. The husband of Sabitri Devi had died-in-harness and on that basis his one of the son, namely, Late Tulsi Das has been given compassionate appointment in the year 1995. Unfortunately, Tulsi Das has also died on 17.12.2011 and on death of Tulsi Das, dispute has arisen between the parties, who are parties in the present case. Sabitri Devi has claimed compassionate appointment for her second son, namely, Jainandan @ Raju on the basis of nomination and further she has claimed 100% amount of CMPF, Life Cover Scheme and Gratuity on the basis that she was the only nominee to receive these amounts. So far as pension is concerned, wi