SYNDICATE BANK Vs. N S PRIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ appeal is preferred against the order dated 22.8.1996 in W.P. No. 18785 of 1992, allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent and quashing the communication dated 28.12.1989 of the Personnel Manager of the appellant bank expressing their inability to keep the offer of appointment open favouring the respondent on her attaining the age of majority, and directing the appellant to provide a suitable job to the respondent in any existing vacancy or any future vacancy as expeditiously as possible.

(2.) IN order to appreciate the controversy between the parties, the following facts require to be noticed. The respondent is the first daughter of late N.Narayana Pillai, who was working in the appellant bank. He died on 29.6.1984 while in service. The respondent's mother, who is working in the Fisheries Department, Government of Tamil Nadu, approached the appellant seeking a job on compassionate basis for the respondent. The respondent's mother was intimated by the appellant by letter dated 14.9.1984 that the respondent's request for compassionate appointment will be kept open for her and that she may renew her application when she attains majority. At the relevant point of time, the respondent was a minor. The above letter was followed by another communication dated 7.11.1985 in and by which the appellant bank wanted to know the name of the deceased employee's daughter to whom appointment had to be offered on attaining the age of majority. The Personnel Manager of the appellant bank sent a communication dated 22.11.1989 to the widow of the deceased employee informing her that on review of the case it was observed that since she is employed in the Fisheries Department of the Government of Tamil Nadu and having independant income, she was not a dependant of the deceased employee. By that communication intimation was solicited as to the nature of employment, name of the employer, monthly income and also the pay certificate from the employer in regard to the wife of the deceased for consideration of the appellant bank on 7.12.1989. The wife of the deceased employee intimated the appellant that she is working in the Ministerial Services in the Department of Fisheries, Government of Tamil Nadu and that she does not own any movable or immovable properties either in her name or in the names of her daughters. It was further mentioned in that letter that neither the deceased employee nor her parents left any property. It was further stated that the emoluments drawn by her were not even sufficient to make both ends meet and that she was living with her old mother, two daughters and widowed aunt. IN the light of the above representations, the widow of the deceased employee requested the appellant to provide a job to her daughter as assured in the bank's communication dated 14.9.1984.

(3.) BEFORE the learned Judge it was urged on behalf of the respondent that the impugned communication and the orders cannot be sustained, in that, the bank has manifestly erred in denying the claim for appointment of the respondent when the scheme provided for such an appointment, that the appellant bank could not go back on the commitment made by it earlier assuring appointment to the respondent and that therefore, the impugned communication is liable to be set aside. Per contra, learned counsel for the bank urged that when the mother of the respondent is employed as head clerk in the Department of Fisheries, having independant income to support the family, the respondent was not entitled?for appointment. Pointing out the scheme, the learned counsel for the bank submitted that the discretion is vested with the bank to consider the claim for appointment the individual circumstances of each case. Shivaraj Patil, J., who heard the writ petition, opined that the respondent/ writ petitioner is entitled for appointment on the basis of the assurance contained in the communication dated 14.9.1984 and in the light of the scheme for appointment on compassionate basis. Challenging the said order of the learned Judge, the present writ appeal has been filed by the bank.