(1.) The petitioners have filed this Original Petition claiming appointment for the 2nd petitioner under the dying in harness scheme in the first respondent Union Bank of India. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the case are the following:
(2.) The first petitioners husband late M.K. Mohanan Pillai was a Clerk / Cashier in the Kottayam Branch of the Union Bank of India. He died in harness on 28.1.1996. The second petitioner is the eldest daughter of late M.K. Mohanan Pillai. The deceased employee left behind another daughter also. The first petitioner and two daughters were the dependants of the said employee. He died of Myloid Leukemia which is an acute form of blood cancer. The petitioners submit that all their earnings were spent for his treatment. Loans were also availed of for the said purpose. Ext. P1 is the scheme governing appointment under the dying in harness scheme in the Union Bank of India. The second petitioner had completed eighteen years of age and had passed SSLC and Pre Degree. Therefore, she was eligible to get appointment under Ext. P1 Scheme. So, she submitted Ext. P2 application dated 3.6.1996 claiming appointment as a Clerk in the first respondent bank. The first petitioner who is the widow of the deceased employee and the mother of the second petitioner, has given consent for appointing the second petitioner under the dying in harness scheme as per Ext. P2(a). The second petitioner has given an undertaking as evidenced by Ext. P2(b) that she will look after her mother and younger sister. Even though those applications were submitted in accordance with the scheme, there was no response from the side of the first respondent for about two years. After repeated representations, the Branch Manager of the Kottayam Branch informed the second petitioner by Ext. P3 dated 2.3.1998 that the competent authority has declined the application of the second petitioner for appointment. But the decision of the competent authority was never communicated to the petitioners, even though a request was made for the same. Again, Ext. P4 dated 19.1.1998 was served on the second petitioner stating that the competent authority has rejected her claim for appointment. Again, the petitioners submitted a representation requesting to furnish a copy of the order passed by the competent authority declining the claim of the second petitioner. But, that order was never served on them. Thereafter, the trade union of the Bank employees in which the deceased employee was a member, took up the matter with the Bank. The union submitted Ext. P5 representation espousing the cause of the petitioners. Though the said union made several attempts to get the decision reconsidered, they were of no avail. Therefore, left without any remedy, the petitioners have filed this Original Petition challenging Exts. P3 and P4. They also seek a direction to the respondents to appoint the second petitioner as Clerk in the Bank. The petitioners submit that they were totally depending on the income of the deceased employee for their livelihood. While the second petitioner was denied employment after the death of her father, at least, three persons were appointed under the dying in harness scheme and their names are given in Para.6 of the Original Petition. So, it is submitted that the action of the management in declining appointment to the second petitioner is arbitrary and discriminatory. It is also submitted that the second petitioner is eligible to get appointment under the dying in harness scheme and the rejection of her application is illegal and unreasonable.
(3.) The respondents have filed a counter affidavit. They have produced Ext. R1 Scheme dated 19.2.1997 which is in fact a copy of Ext. P1 scheme. It is submitted that the second petitioners claim has been considered in the light of Ext. R1 scheme and according to the Bank, she was found ineligible. The reason for rejection of the second petitioners claim is that the first petitioner is getting a monthly family pension of Rs. 4,475/- and she has been paid terminal benefits to the tune of Rs. 73,156/34 (Rupees Seventythree thousand one hundred fiftysix and paise thirty four only). The appointments of certain persons pointed out by the petitioners under the dying in harness scheme are justified in the counter affidavit on the ground that the deceased employees in those cases did not opt for pension and therefore their families were not getting family pension.