SHYAM SUNDARI DEVI Vs. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioners, Smt. Shyam Sundari Devi and Ganesh Prasad, widow and son of Late Chnni Lal Ram, have come to this Court in this writ application, inter alia, submitting that the order contained in Annexure-1, letter dated August 14, 2003, under which appointment on compassionate ground has been refused by the Bank is bad and deserves to be quashed with a direction against the Bank to issue an order of appointment in favour of the petitioner No. 2.

(2.) On notice the respondents appeared in the Court and submitted that the order contained in Annexure-1 is valid and justified. In paragraph 6 they have submitted that the family received a sum of Rs. 2,05,218/- as terminal benefits and they are getting family pension of Rs. 3014/-per month. It is submitted by them that the petitioners are well to do, they can maintain themselves and the Bank is absolutely justified in refusing appointment on compassionate ground.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that on payment of said paltry amount and pittance in the name of pension, if appointment on compassionate ground is not granted then the provisions contained in the scheme which was framed in accordance with [he directions issued by the Supreme Court in the matter of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryona and others 1994 (4) SCC 138 : 1995-I-LLJ-798 would be defeated and the scheme would remain in the books and would never be implemented by the employers. He submits that the terminal benefits as shown in paragraph 6 of the counter, in fact, are imaginary. According to him the deceased had taken housing loan of Rs. 21,716/- and at the time of death of the deceased only a sum of Rs. 10,858/- was adjusted and the balance, if was given as a concession, the same would not become the liquid fund in the hands of the family. It is also submitted by him that the deceased had taken a personal loan of Rs. 25,000/- for performing the marriage of the daughter which became Rs. 28,259/- at the time of death and this amount would be adjusted by the respondents while making the final payments. According to him, if the amount of Rs. 10,858/- and the personal loan amount are deducted from the total receipts then the petitioners would only get a sum of Rs. 1,66,000/- and odds. He submits that pension of Rs. 3014/- per month is not sufficient enough to maintain the family of the deceased and under such circumstances the petitioner No. 2 is entitled to be appointed. The respondents have opposed the application.