SWAPNA BANERJEE Vs. CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, BCCL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner has stepped into the shoes of the original petitioner, her father, who had filed the instant writ petition for cancellation of the appointment of the respondent no. 5, Rabindra Nath Banerjee. On the death of the original petitioner, his wife Bhakti Mukherjee was substituted and upon her death, the present petitioner Swapna Banerjee has been substituted, who in fact was the legally married wife of respondent no. 5, Rabindra Nath Banerjee till they separated by mutual consent through divorce decree dated 03.08.2005 in Matrimonial Title Suit No. 54 of 2005.

(2.) The writ petition was preferred in the year 2000 by the father of the present petitioner alleging that the respondent no. 5, who had obtained appointment in lieu of the land lost by his father-in-law, i.e. the original petitioner, Binoy Krishna Mukherjee, had not been keeping his daughter i.e. the present petitioner along with him and had violated the terms and conditions of such employment in lieu of the land acquisition of the original petitioner.

(3.) The relevant factual matrix of the instant case are briefly noticed hereinunder. On the proposal of the land loser i.e. father of the present petitioner, the respondent-BCCL approved one employment in favour of the respondent no. 5 on 19.05.1992 as he was proposed son-in-law of the said Binoy Krishna Mukherjee. The marriage of the present petitioner (hereinafter referred as the petitioner) with the respondent no. 5 took place on 14.06.1992. They registered their marriage on 03.07.1992. The respondent no. 5 got an employment in lieu of the land lost by the father of the petitioner on 12.08.1992 and he joined as General Mazdoor Loader on 14.08.1992. The respondent no. 5 is alleged to have left the petitioner after completion of one year of probation of his service on 02.10.1993. Thereafter ensued series of representations made on behalf of the father of the present petitioner to the respondent-BCCL i.e. the employer for enquiring into the matter and also cancelling the appointment of the respondent no. 5 having failed to maintain the present petitioner as wife despite such undertaking given for taking the employment in lieu of the land that was acquired by the BCCL. It is relevant to state that the finding in the report of the employer that the respondent no. 5 and the petitioner were not staying together were also corroborated by the litigation that ensued between the parties which started from 1993 onwards. The respondent no. 5, instituted a suit for restitution of conjugal rights being Matrimonial Title Suit No. 94 of 1993/206 of 1995 which was decreed in his favour vide judgment and decree dated 01.09.1999. The petitioner's appeal preferred against the said decree before the High Court in First Appeal No. 109 of 1999(R) was dismissed on 08.02.2002. Her SLP preferred before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was also dismissed on 22.09.2003. The respondent no. 5, thereafter preferred a Matrimonial Title Suit seeking divorce on the ground that there was no restitution of conjugal rights between the husband and the petitioner-wife for more than two years despite the decree passed by the Court earlier. The said divorce suit was decreed on mutual consent between the parties on 03.08.2005. The petitioner had also filed the maintenance case being M.P. Case No. 08 of 2005 under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. which was disposed of vide order dated 03.08.2005. Under the decree passed in the title suit and under the proceeding in the maintenance case, the respondent no. 5 was directed to pay a sum of Rs. 1800/- per month as maintenance along with a sum of Rs. One Lac as alimony. Thereafter, the petitioner has been getting maintenance per month since August, 2005 and she has also got a sum of Rs. One Lac. However, the petitioner has also preferred a Criminal Miscellaneous case for enhancement of maintenance amount under Section 127 of the Cr.P.C. being Cr. Misc. No. 49 of 2011 which is still pending before the Competent Court. In the aforesaid chronology of facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is pressed on behalf of the petitioner where cancellation of appointment of the respondent no. 5 has been sought for alleging violation of the terms and conditions under which he was employed i.e. in lieu of land acquired of the petitioner's father at the relevant point of time.