KUNTI DEVI Vs. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this case relates to appointment on compassionate ground. By order contained in annexure 6 dated 4.5.2000 the application of the petitioner to appoint her son Deepak Kumar Singh on compassionate ground on the death of her husband i.e. the father of Deepak Kumar Singh, while in the employment of the respondent Syndicate Bank has been rejected. The petitioner seeks quashing of the said order and a direction to appoint her said son. She had earlier approached this Court in the matter in CWJC No. 10116 of 1999 which was disposed of with a direction to file representation. The impugned order dated 4.5.2000 has been passed in the light of the said order.

(2.) THE writ petition earlier came up before a learned single Judge of this Court who by order dated 12.4.2001 referred the case to Division Bench. From the order it appears that reliance was placed in support of the petitioners claim on a decision in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Singh V/s. State Bank of India, 2001(2) PLJR 219. In view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal V/s. State of Haryana (1994)4 SCC 138, pressed into service on behalf of the respondent -Bank, the learned Judge thought it desirable to refer the case to Division Bench. That is how the case has come up before this Bench.

(3.) BEFORE adverting to the contentions advanced on behalf of the parties, it would be appropriate to notice the factual background of the dispute. Late Ram Naresh Singh, the husband of the petitioner and father of said Deepak Kumar Singn was a clerk -cum -cashier in the Syndicate Bank (hereinafter referred to as the Bank) since 9.6.65. While in employment he developed some ailments and ultimately died on 3.9.96. He left behind three minor children, besides the petitioner and Deepak Kumar Singh. On 26.11.96 the petitioner made application to the Managing Director of the Bank through the Branch Manager for appointment of Deepak Kumar Singh. She sent reminders but no action was taken. In the circumstances, she came to this Court in CWJC No. 10116 of 1999 which was disposed of with a direction to her to make a proper representation, and corresponding direction to the respondents to pass final order. The petitioner filed representation on 15.3.2000. In the application she stated that she has no other source of income except the pension and no other member of the family was employed. By the impugned order dated 4.5.2000 the application was rejected on the ground that the total family income of the petitioner is Rs. 6,162/ - comprising family pension of Rs. 4.304/ - and notional interest of Rs. 1,858/ - per month on the net liquid assets, which was sufficient and therefore it is not a fit case for compassionate appointment.