VASANTHA KUMARI Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main point to be decided in this case is whether the petitioner is ineligible for appointment under the dying in harness scheme on the ground of the alleged affluence of her parents. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are the following:

(2.) The petitioners husband was a Clerk of the first respondent Canara Bank. While working at the Calicut Branch of the said Bank, he died in harness on 6.9.1996. He left behind the petitioner and her two minor children aged 14 and 8 and also his aged mother. At the time of death of her husband, the petitioner was aged 36 and was a graduate. The petitioners husband did not have any income other than his salary and he was the only earning member of the family. After his death, the petitioner has to look after her minor children and also his aged mother and therefore, for appointment under the dying in harness scheme, she submitted an application, Ext. P1 dated 28.10.1996. The second respondent Deputy General Manager of the Canara Bank gave Ext. P2 reply to the petitioner on 19.1.1998 stating that the competent authority on an indepth examination of the financial position of the family of the deceased found that no indigent circumstances exist warranting giving employment under the dying in harness scheme to the dependant of the deceased employee. She submitted a representation to reconsider the stand of the bank and the reply to the same is Ext. P3 dated 8.9.1998. The Bank reiterated the position that the financial position of her family has been examined by the competent authority in depth and therefore no fresh grounds were made out to reconsider her request. Another representation made by her met with the same fate as evident from Ext. P4 dated 5.11.1999. Then she submitted another representation to the Chairman and Managing Director of the first respondent Bank which was rejected by Ext. P5 wherein it was reiterated that no ground has been made out for reconsideration. She again submitted a representation Ext. P6 dated 4.5.2001 relying on a decision of this Court as well as the decision of the Supreme Court. The petitioner challenges the rejection of her request for appointment under the dying in harness scheme on the ground that the same is contrary to law.

(3.) The respondents have filed a counter affidavit explaining the stand taken by them, mainly raising the following contentions. The appointment under the dying in harness scheme is something which is granted in the discretion of the bank. Therefore, the Original Petition is not maintainable as the petitioner does not have any legal right to get appointment. It is also submitted that the Original Petition is highly belated. The petitioner got Rs. 1.5 lakhs as balance terminal benefits after deducting the liabilities. She is also being paid a family pension of Rs. 3,321/84. Apart from that, the petitioner is the member of an affluent family. She is the partner of a flourshing business establishment engaged in the business of ayurvedic medicines / raw materials. The petitioners mother owns a commercial complex in a prime locality wherein the Regional Office of the Canara Bank is housed. The rent paid by the bank itself will come to more than Rs. 60,000/- per month. The business establishment in which the petitioner is a partner is also housed in the same building. The family of the deceased owns a building constructed availing a housing loan from the Bank. In view of the above reasons, it is submitted that the petitioners application for appointment under the dying in harness scheme is rejected.