STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. MEENA DHAIGUDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant Bank of India under Sec. 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nayaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, and the rules made thereunder assailing the order dtd. 26/7/2021, passed in Writ Petition No.7249 of 2012 by the Single Judge of the writ Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner(hereinafter referred to as 'the petitioner') under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for her compassionate appointment has been allowed with a cost of Rs.2.00 lakhs to be paid by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as 'the respondent Bank') to the writ petitioner.

(3.) In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner's husband Ashok Dhaigude, who was an employee of the erstwhile State Bank of Indore went missing on 20/10/1998, and as his absence was for more than 90 days, in terms of para 17(a) of Bipartite Settlement dtd. 10/4/1989 read with para 522(3) of Sastry Award, he was served with 30 days notice on 21/1/1999, calling upon him to resume duties within 30 days from the date of notice, failing which he would be treated to have voluntarily retired. The aforesaid notice was replied to by the wife of Ashok Dhaigude, vide her letter dtd. 8/2/1999, informing the bank that her husband has been missing since 20/10/1998 and she has also lodged a police report in this regard. As it turned out, Ashok Dhaigude did not report on duty till 10/6/1999 i.e., much after the expiry of the said notice dtd. 21/1/1999, the Controller of the Branch treated him as voluntarily retired with effect from 20/10/1998 i.e., the date on which he went missing.