SHALL DEVI Vs. BOARD OF DIRECTORS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HUSBAND of petitioner no. 1 was an employee of respondent -Bank. He was posted as Branch Manager in the office of respondents. He died in harness on 1.12.98. Petitioner no. 1 filed an application for appointment of petitioner no. 2 who is her son -in -law on compassionate ground on 8.3.99. The said petition has been rejected vide order, Annexure -10 stating therein that her youngest son Shail be provided job when he would be major since her eldest son is mentally retarded.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner during course of argument drew my attention to Annex -1 wherein dependants have Peen defined. The same is quoted for ready reference :

(3.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the petitioner the deceased had two sons, one was mentally retarted and another was minor aged about 12. years at the time of filing of application. He had also five daughters out of whom two have been married. One of the sons -in -law was nominated by petitioner no. 1 for appointment as he was looking after petitioner no. 1 and had undertaken to look after her and her entire family. It was also disclosed by learned counsel for the petitioners that other family members are either not eligible for appointment or not interested in job. Learned counsel for the respondent -Bank, however, stated that under the scheme in case deceased employee died leaving behind no children of his own eligible for appointment the other near relation can be appointed on whom the widow will be wholly dependant.