K RAJANI Vs. VIJAYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER, questioning the impugned order dated 3rd april 2003 bearing No. PER. HRD. RCT; 1785/2003 passed by respondent-Vijaya Bank vide Annexure-L, has presented the instant writ petition. Further, petitioner has sought for a direction, directing the respondent to appoint the petitioner as 'clerk' on compassionate grounds and grant all consequential benefits.

(2.) THE undisputed facts of the case are that, petitioner herein had earlier filed a writ petition in W. P. No. 4121 of 2002 and the said matter had come up for consideration before this Court on 22nd October 2002 and the same was disposed of with three directions to the respondent-Bank. Copy of the order passed in the said writ petition is herewith produced and marked as Annexure-J to this writ petition. The said three directions were, i) While considering the application of the petitioner, the respondent-Bank shall consider the relevant scheme which was applicable to the petitioner's case on the date of filing of her application seeking an appointment on compassionate grounds or consider the date of death of her husband, i. e. , Sri P. C. Krishna, ii) While considering the application of petitioner, the respondent-Bank shall not take into consideration the amount which is being paid as family pension to the mother of the petitioner; and iii) the respondent-Bank shall not look into family pension payable by the respondent-Bank to the petitioner while considering the case of petitioner for her appointment on compassionate grounds, in view of the law laid down by this Court, as stated in the said order. Being aggrieved by the said order passed by the learned Single Judge of this court, respondent-Bank herein filed a writ appeal in W. A. No. 140/2003 and the said appeal had come up for consideration before the Division bench of this Court on 5th April 2005 and the Division Bench of this Court, after hearing, disposed of the said writ appeal on the ground that, the said appeal does not survive for consideration on the ground that, the learned counsel appearing for respondent-Bank (appellant-Bank therein) had filed a memo stating that, the case of the petitioner herein has been considered and rejected by respondent-Bank by its order dated 3rd April 2003 and produced a copy of the order along with the memo. However, while disposing of the said appeal, the Division Bench observed that, if petitioner is aggrieved by the said order dated 3rd April 2003 passed by respondent-Bank, the remedy was open to her to challenge the said order by instituting separate proceedings. When the said writ appeal was pending adjudication before the Division Bench of this Court, the respondent-Bank has disposed of the application filed by petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds by its order dated 3rd April 2003 vide Annexure L, rejecting the request of petitioner by taking into account the deficiencies, demerits and ineligible factors. The respondent-Bank, after assessing the financial condition of the family of the petitioner has analyzed that, the valuation as per the Statement of Assets and Liabilities dated 31st May 1999 filed by petitioner, the net assets value is arrived at Rs. 4,92,132/- and if one calculates, as return of 11% per annum, the family would get Rs. 54,134/-per annum which works out to Rs. 4,511/- per month and on adding the pension of Rs. 3,790/-, the monthly income of the family works out to Rs. 8,301/- and observed that, by considering the net assets and the income arrived as stated, the family cannot be deemed to be in destitution and distress as claimed by the applicant nor it can be termed as without livelihood. Further, taking into account the deficiencies, demerits and ineligible aspects, the application filed by petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds has been rejected. Being aggrieved by the impugned order passed by respondent-Bank vide Annexure-L and seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra, petitioner herein felt necessitated to present the instant writ petition on the same cause of action in view of the liberty reserved to her by the Division Bench in the writ appeal.

(3.) THE principal ground urged by learned Counsel appearing for petitioner in the instant writ petition is that, the impugned order at annexure-L passed by respondent-Bank is liable to be rejected at the threshold itself in view of non-compliance of the direction issued by this court dated 22nd October 2002 passed in Writ Petition No. 4121 of 2002, in toto. Further, he vehemently submitted that, the respondent-Bank in the case of Smt. Bharathi Mohan Saboji, w/o. Late Mohan B. Saboji, who is similarly situated as that of petitioner, has appointed the said applicant, smt. Bharathi Mohan Saboji on compassionate grounds on account of the death of her husband, Sri Mohan B. Saboji in obedience of the direction issued by the Division Bench of this Court dated 5th April 2005 passed in writ Appeal No. 139 of 2003 vide Annexure-M. Thereafter, petitioner herein has submitted her detailed representation dated 20th June 2005 vide annexure-N, pointing out that, her case is also similar to that of Smt. Bharathi Mohan Saboji, whose case has been considered by virtue of the direction given by this Court in Writ Appeal and compassionate appointment has been provided to her and requested the competent authority to consider her case also on the same footing for appointment on compassionate grounds, without taking into consideration the terminal benefits payable to the members of the family of a deceased employee.