BALJIT SINGH Vs. BANK OF BARODA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-plaintiff is aggrieved of the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, whereby judgment and decree of the trial Court decreeing the suit in favour of the appellant-plaintiff, have been set aside.

(2.) Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of appellant-plaintiff submits, that suit for declaration and mandatory injunction claiming the compassionate employment on the demise of his father Balbir Singh who while, in harness unfortunately expired on 16.05.1999. The application dated 21.02.2000 through mother/widow of Balbir Singh was moved seeking compassionate employment as per the terms and conditions of 1998 Scheme. On attaining the age of majority, another application in this regard was submitted on 25.03.2004. The bank rejected the claim of compassionate employment without assigning any reasons by stating that the case did not fall within the parameters of 2004 scheme. He further submits that aforementioned decision was impugned by seeking declaration as it is not in consonance with law, much less, judgment rendered in Krishna Kumari Vs. State of Haryana and ors., 2012(2) RSJ 476 . However, the lower Appellate Court has gone into surmises and conjectures by holding that once the family of the deceased were drawing family pension, therefore, no cause of action accrued to seek compassionate employment i.e. once the member of the deceased is drawing family pension, he/she is not entitled to seek compassionate employment as per 2004 Scheme. He thus submits that following substantial questions of law arises for determination:-

(3.) Mr. Hitesh Kaplish, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank submits, that since 2004 Scheme envisaged, in case any family member of the deceased drawing the family pension, such family member is not entitled to seek compassionate employment. He further submits that the effective date for consideration on the application for compassionate employment would be a date when the appellant-plaintiff attained majority, much less, when he moved an application dated 25.03.2004 and at that time, 2004 Scheme was in-vogue, thus, there is no illegality and perversity in the impugned judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court.