MADHUBEN HARISING CHAUHAN Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE short facts of the case appear to be that the husband of the petitioner was serving with the respondent Bank as 'clerk/cashier'. He met with a massive heart-attack and expired on 30. 11. 1998. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment vide application dated 7. 1. 1999. It is the case of the petitioner that the husband left two little children and the petitioner having no source of income. On 24. 8. 1999 the application of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondent Bank without assigning any reason. The petitioner preferred appeal before the Chairman of the Bank, which also came to be rejected. The petitioner has meagre income of Rs. 391/- per month being the interest on the amount of Provident Fund, etc. , and pursued the matter further. Again, on 22. 10. 1999 the application of the petition was rejected for reconsideration of the matter. The petitioner also pursued the matter through Union, which also ultimately resulted into rejection in the year 2003. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court by the present petition.

(2.) HEARD Ms. Fozdar for Mr. Shalin Mehta, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Varun Patel with Mr. K. M. Patel, learned Counsel for the respondent.

(3.) IT appears from the decision communicated to the petitioner, that the same is without stating any reasons whatsoever. Therefore, if the decision is considered as it is and not being supported by any reason whatsoever, the decision can be said as arbitrary.