PRASHANT KUMAR RAI Vs. UNITED BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER has prayed for quashing the decision taken by the respondents as contained in letter No. 192/2001 dated 15.2.2001, whereby the respondents refused to give appointment on account of death of his father who died in harness.

(2.) PETITIONERS case is that has father was employed in the respondent -Bank as an Assistant. In 1998, because of "Heart Attack" his father died in harness leaving behind his widow, two unmarried daughters and one son, Prashant Kumar Rai, the petitioner. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment. Vide letter dated 22.2.99 and 22.1.2000, petitioner was directed to submit all the necessary documents and papers. It was mentioned in the said letter that if documents are not filed then the Bank will presume that the petitioner is not interested for employment in the Bank. Petitioner submitted all the documents and papers in time. However, respondent -Bank refused to give appointment on the ground that as per revised scheme of the Bank, only widow of the deceased employee can request the Bank to give employment under "Died -in -Harness", provided her monthly income from the estate of her deceased family does not exceed rupees three thousand and she fulfills other terms and conditions.

(3.) A copy of the Circular dated 1.11.2000 has been annexed as Annexure -A to the counter -affidavit. By the aforesaid circular, "Dieds -in - Harness" Scheme was revised in 2000. Rule 5 of the said Scheme reads as under: - -