Asok Kumar Ganguly, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed by Reserve Bank of India [hereinafter called 'the said Bank'] challenging the judgment and order dated 22nd April 1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Writ Court in C.O. 13714(W) of 1989. By the impugned judgment the learned Judge gave a direction upon the appellant to consider the case of the writ petitioners/respondent for the post of Class IV staff including the post of Sweeper/Mazdoor subject to an undertaking of the writ petitioner that he will not ask for any promotion on the basis of his qualification from the post of Peon/ Mazdoor or to any other promotional post except in accordance with the relevant rules for promotion. The learned Judge further directed that the writ petitioner should be absorbed in any vacancy commensurate with his qualification or any other post within three months from the date of communication of the impugned order. While passing the said order, the learned Judge relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sushama Gossain and Ors. v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1989 SC 1976.
(2.) The material facts of the case are that the father of the writ petitioner No. 1 while working with the said Bank as a Durwan died in harness on 18.1.1978 living behind the writ petitioner, Adhir Kr. Ghosh, other minor children and Smt. Renuka Ghosh, writ petitioner No. 2, the mother of the writ petitioners. After such death, the writ petitioner No. 2, the widow of the deceased employee and the mother of the writ petitioner No. 1 wrote a letter to the Manager of the said Bank on 20th February, 1978 stating therein that her son, the petitioner No. 1, aged 16, reading in Class - VIII, was a minor and as such she made a request to the Manager of the said Bank to make a provision so that the said minor son after becoming a major might get a job in the said Bank. The same was in the nature of a mercy petition.
(3.) To the said petition, the Manager of the said Bank gave a reply to the effect that her son on attaining majority may apply for a post suitable for his age and qualification as and when such posts are advertised and such application if made, will be considered in normal course. Thereafter, another letter was written to the writ petitioner No. 2 by the said Bank to the effect that one of the sons of the deceased employee was working in the bank as a Mazdoor since July, 1961. In view of the said fact, the prayer for a job in the said Bank on compassionate grounds of another son cannot be considered. It was however, made clear that the other son namely, writ 1 petitioner No. 1 might apply for a post suitable to his age and qualification and the application would be considered in the normal course. Then another letter was written by the writ petitioner No. 2 stating therein that Shri Ajit Kr. Ghosh was the son of the first wife of the deceased, since his appointment in the said Bank, was staying separately and did not maintain any connection or relation with the family of the writ petitioners. Therefore, the family members of the writ petitioners are in acute financial crisis and a prayer was made to absorb the writ petitioner No. 1 in the service of the said Bank on compassionate grounds. Subsequently, a letter was also written by the writ petitioner No. 2. As these letters and representations did not produce any result, a writ petition was filed before this Hon'ble Court which was numbered as Matter No. 2383 of 1986. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned Judge of this Court by an order dated 20th July, 1989 with a direction upon the said Bank to consider the case of the writ petitioner No. 1 for employment irrespective of the circulars of the said Bank and if the writ petitioner No. 1 was found suitable for any post it was directed that he should be given appointment on compassionate ground as his father died in harness. It was made clear in the said order that the case of the writ petitioner No. 1 should not be rejected on the ground that he had become over aged. It was also made clear that in the event the said Bank for any reason found the writ petitioner No. 1 not suitable for any post, the said Bank should specify the reasons and the petitioners will be at liberty to move to the appropriate forum for redress of their grievances.;