NANDINI PAUL Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order bearing reference no. PA (OS/DIH/N. Paul/831/2018) dated 9th February, 2018 issued by the Chief Manager, PA(AS) terminating the service of the petitioner, given to her under compassionate appointment scheme of the bank is under challenge in the instant writ petition One late Suvendu Paul, ex-senior manager, of the respondent bank, died in harness on 17th August, 2014 leaving behind his wife; Nandini Paul being the petitioner herein, his minor son, his parents and his elder brother as his heirs and legal representatives. On the death of her husband the petitioner applied for being appointed in the bank on compassionate ground.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed on 3rd February, 2016 as 'Single Window Operator' of the bank and posted at the Nabogram branch. Her appointment was made under the 'scheme for compassionate appointment' of the bank, hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'. The service of the petitioner was subject to certain conditions as laid down in the letter dated 28th July, 2015. Her service was confirmed by a communication dated 6th March, 2017 issued by the Chief Manager (Admn) of the respondent bank Vide a letter dated 12th April, 2017 the Chief Manger, PA(AS) informed the petitioner that a complaint was lodged against her by her parents-in-law on the allegation that she has deserted them and she is not maintaining them. The same was in violation of the terms of employment on compassionate ground. The petitioner was advised to explain as to why appropriate action should not be initiated against her.

(3.) The petitioner by a letter dated 25th April, 2017 replied that she was surprised as after a long time her parents-in-law instead of approaching her have approached the bank directly. She requested the bank to send her a copy of the alleged complaint as she wanted to see the contents of the same. By another letter dated 4th May, 2017 the petitioner informed the bank that prior to the death of her husband her parents-in-law used to stay with her. On the death of her husband they suddenly left the petitioner and her minor son in the lurch and went to stay with their eldest son who happens to be an executive of a private bank. Since then the parents-in-law never kept any contact with the petitioner. After the death of her husband she was passing through severe financial crisis and had to depend upon her parents for sustenance. She further informed that her father-in-law was an employee of a private firm and on his superannuation he received his retirement benefits including gratuity and provident fund. The parents-in-law were residing with their eldest son and were neither deserted nor in distressed condition. She expressed her desire to look after her parents-in-law on the condition that they should reside with the petitioner.