N KANNIAMMAL Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner seeks to challenge the order of the second respondent dated 19.9.2000 passed in No.GAD (Che)/4153/ 07.01.057/2000-01 and while praying for setting aside the said order, also seeks for a direction to the respondents to consider and appoint the petitioner's son in Class IV Service of the respondents Bank by applying the old scheme applicable to compassionate appointments.

(2.) THE brief facts, which are required to be stated are that the petitioner's husband was appointed in the bank on 3.2.1971 and he died in harness on 20.06.1991, leaving behind the petitioner, one minor son and two minor daughters. One of the daughters is stated to be a physically handicapped child. At the time of the death of her husband, the petitioner was left with a small piece of vacant land at Guduvanchery, which did not yield any income. Apart from the terminal benefits, which she received due to the demise of her late husband, the family pension that is being paid is hardly stated to be around Rs.2000/- and odd. At that point of time, the petitioner applied for an employment for her son, who was 15 years old, as per the scheme for compassionate appointment that was in vogue. THE application was stated to have been made on 04.09.1991. Since her son was a minor, the respondent Bank vide its reply dated 07.09.1991, advised her to renew her request after her son becomes major.

(3.) BE that as it may under similar circumstances, the claim for compassionate appointment in respect of another employee who died in harness came to be made by the son of the deceased which was also rejected by the respondent bank. In respect of the said claim, a writ petition came to be filed in this Court in W.P.No,8284 of 1995. The claim in that case was also identical to that of the present petitioner. By order dated 28.09.1999, the said writ petition was allowed and a direction was issued to the respondents to consider the claim of the said writ petitioner afresh for the appointment of her son on compassionate ground and provide such employment. While giving the said direction, it was held that the claim for compassionate appointment should be considered under the scheme that existed prior to 01.10.1992 and the rejection of the claim by applying new circular and scheme cannot be sustained. It is stated that the said order of the learned Judge was complied with and compassionate appointment was given to the son of the said writ petitioner.