LAWS(ORI)-2012-1-5

MIHIR KUMAR BAL Vs. RESERVE BANK OF INDIA

Decided On January 06, 2012
MIHIR KUMAR BAL Appellant
V/S
RESERVE BANK OF INDIA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE grievance of the petitioner is against the order dated 31.3.2008 passed by the Deputy General Manager, R.B.I. (Annexure-20) refusing to extend him the benefit of compassionate appointment being the dependant son of Krushna Chandra Bal, who while serving in the Reserve Bank of India (R.B.I.) died.

(2.) THE brief facts leading to this writ petition tend to reveal that the father of the petitioner, namely, Krushna Chandra Bal, while working as a Daftary in the Kolkata Office of R.B.I. died on 4.1.1987. After the death of said Krushna Chandra Bal, the Currency Officer of R.B.I., Kolkata, issued a letter on 28.1.1987 in the name of the mother of the petitioner requesting her to forward them the death certificate of her husband for necessary action. It is not disputed that the mother of the petitioner died much prior to the death of his father, i.e., on 11.4.1983. After receiving the aforesaid letter, the petitioner forwarded the death certificate of his father to the Chief Manager, R.B.I., O.P.2, and on 16.2.1987 he made a representation to O.P.3- Manager, R.B.I., to give him an appointment on compassionate ground commensurate with his qualification, i.e., Matriculation pass. O.P.3, Manager, R.B.I., by letter dated 20.5.1987 (Annexure-3) directed the petitioner to furnish a copy of the document to the effect that he is the legal heir of late Krushna Chandra Bal. In response thereto, the petitioner furnished the legal heir certificate to O.P.3. THEreafter, the petitioner requested the opposite parties by making several communications to extend him the benefit of compassionate appointment but nothing was done. Ultimately, when the petitioner went to the Kolkata Office of R.B.I. to enquire about the fate of his representation, he was told by the Bank officials that the matter was held up as one Mukti Rani Bahal claiming to be the wife of late Krushna Chandra Bal had represented for appointment on compassionate ground. THE petitioner raised objection to the aforesaid claim of said Mukti Rani Bahal. In the meantime, said Mukti Rani Bahal filed T.S.No.161/1989 in the Court of 2nd Munsif, Howrah, for a declaration that she was the legally married wife of late Krushna Chandra Bal, father of the petitioner. THE said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 24.7.1992, against which the petitioner preferred an appeal being Title Appeal No.178/1992 before the District Judge, Howrah. THE appeal was ultimately allowed on contest by judgment dated 24.6.1993 by setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the 2nd Munsif, Howrah and the suit was remanded for trial afresh. THEreafter, the Title Suit was dismissed for default on 20.7.1994. Long thereafter, said Mukti Rani Bahal filed a misc. case for restoration of the Title Suit but the same was dismissed on 18.1.2003 on the ground of delay. According to the petitioner, the said order of dismissal having not been challenged had attained finality. It is further submitted that the petitioner was issued with a Succession Certificate by the Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Cuttack in Succession Misc. Case No.7/1993, vide Annexure-15, in respect of the estate of his father, which according to the petitioner, establishes that he is the successor of his father, late Krushna Chandra Bal. When no action was taken in respect of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, he filed O.J.C. No.3443/1995 before this Court enclosing all the documents including his annual income praying for a direction to the R.B.I. for compassionate appointment, which was disposed of on 6.2.2008. THE relevant portion of the said order is quoted herein below :-