RENU BALA JAIN Vs. NEW BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present petition is directed against the judgment of Additional District Judge, Karnal, whereby the appeal of the respondent-bank was allowed and the suit of the plaintiff-appellant dismissed.

(2.) THE facts of the case are that one Mrs, Parveen Mittal who was an employee of the respondent-Bank, died during the course of her employment. The plaintiff-appellant as practicing Advocate and being a sister of the deceased applied for employment in the Bank on compassionate grounds and when the same was denied to her filed a suit for mandatory injunction against the respondent-Bank seeking a direction that she be provided with employment. The claim of the appellant was resisted by the bank on the ground that as per the scheme Ex. D2, the employment of a dependant of a deceased female employee was not envisaged and further that as the appellant was herself a practising Advocate, she could not be said to have been dependent on her sister Mrs. Parveen Mittal, The assertion of the appellant in the plaint that she along with her mother were the legal heirs of the deceased as they had been paid the gratuity and other benefits due to her which entitled her to employment on this additional ground as well was denied by the bank in the written statement that this was a matter of internal arrangement and if the husband of the deceased had relinquished his rights, that could not bind the bank in any manner.

(3.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court framed the following issues:-1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction? OPP 2. Whether the suit for mandatory injunction is not maintainable? OPD 3. Whether the plaintiff has no legal rights to institute the suit? OPD 4. Whether the Court has no jurisdiction to try this suit? OPD 5. Whether the suit in question is not of a Civil nature? What is the resultant effect? OPD 6. Whether the suit does not disclose any cause of action? OPD 7. Whether the plaintiff has no legal right to seek employment in the defendants-bank? OPD 8. Relief. The trial Court decided all the issues in favour of the plaintiff and under issue No. 8 the suit for the plaintiff was decreed as prayed. The matter was thereafter taken in appeal before the Additional District Judge who, after examining the scheme Ex. D2 and the reasons recorded by the trial Court, held that the plaintiff-appellant did not fall within the four corners of the scheme as she was not a dependent as defined in paragraph 2 (g) thereof and further that paragraph 3 visualise appointment on compassionate grounds only of heirs or close relatives of a deceased male employee. The appeal was accordingly allowed. Hence, this second appeal before this Court.