Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1036 (RAJ)

Maya L. Dhingrani v. U. C. O. Bank, Head Officer

2001-07-06

J.C.VERMA

body2001
Honble VERMA, J.–Shri Lekhumal Dhingrani was working as peon in the Branch Office, Ajmer in the UCO Bank having been so appointed in the year 1964. He died on 7.3.1986 while in service leaving behind widow, two minor daughters who were dependent upon him. (2). The bank had framed a scheme on 17.3.1980 for giving appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependents of the deceased employee who dies while in service. The scheme as reproduced in the written statement provided that in case dependent is minor or does not possess the suitable minimum qualifications, his/her case can be considered within four years of the death of the employee, to enable him/her to so qualify in terms of age and/or qualification provided that the dependent has made a request to the Bank within a year of the death of the employee. (3). The gratuity and other amounts were disbursed on the death of the employee of the legal heirs after they obtained the certificate as required u/Sec. 372 of the Succession Act. (4). The petitioner No.2 Kumari Gayatri Dhingrani had applied for appointment after about five years of the death of late Lekhumal Dhingrani. Petitioner No. 1 the widow of the deceased as well requested the bank to consider the case of her daughter for appointment on compassionate grounds. Repeated applications were made but ultimately the request was rejected on 5.7.1995 vide order Annexure-10 on the ground that it has been made at delayed stage. Despite the rejection, the petitioners continued pressing the bank for the compassionate appointment as per Annex. 11 to 13 attached to the writ petition but the same were again rejected on 11.7.1997 vide Annex.14. Being aggrieved, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition for a direction to the respondent to offer appointment on compassionate ground to petitioner No.2 on suitable post in commensurate with her qualifications. (5). Stress is being led by the counsel for the petitioner on the fact that so far petitioner No.1 is concerned, she being totally illiterate lady and mentally not sound because of the death of her husband and being incapable of doing any job, therefore, the minor child of the deceased was entitled to move the application on attaining the age of majority. The eldest minor daughter of the deceased was 12 years of age in the years 1986 whereas the second minor daughter was of 10 years of age. At the time of death of the deceased employee, none of the minor daughter was capable of applying as per scheme. Another argument is also being advanced that so far the scheme of the bank is concerned, it would have been appropriate for the bank to have informed or let know that petitioners of their right under the scheme to apply within the stipulated period of one year or four years, as the case may be, which had not been done as there was none in the family of the petitioners to inform them of any of such right. (6). After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, I do find merit in the submission as advanced. Even though the provision of providing the appointment on compassionate grounds is basically for giving immediate relief to the party concerned, but in a given case where the entitlement is conferred on minor, in my opinion, such minor is entitled to apply within the limitation as prescribed under the scheme after attaining the age of majority and if such an application is made, the bank is duty bound to consider the same and such request of the minor dependent, who had become major, on application having been made cannot be rejected only on the ground of delay and laches. (7). The members of the deceased are not normally aware of their any right under the scheme to apply for the compassionate appointment until and unless they are so informed and, therefore, it is, therefore advisable that while granting the service benefits to the dependents, it shall be the duty of the employer in situation to inform the dependent as well of any of his right to apply if the circumstance so warrants for him to apply for the job on compassionate grounds. On such contingency of information being made to such dependents, the employer is entitled to say that he had given the information to the dependant or the legal heir of the existence of the rules and right to make the application for compassionate appointment but in the absence of such information having passing to such dependents, time bound clause viz., a viz. dependants may not be invoked as the dependants may not be knowing the rules of the institution or where supposed to know rule of the scheme of the bank as no such situation could arise of would have arisen during the life time of the employee. It shall be appropriate that the institution respondent should invariably inform the existence of the scheme to such dependants or to the legal heirs who receive the benefits after the death of such employee. In the present case the action of the respondent bank cannot be sustained in view of the facts that the petitioner No. 2 was minor of the age of 12 years and she could only apply for compassionate grounds after attaining the age of majority which was so done by the petitioner No. 2 and after the attaining the age of majority, the application is deemed to be within time and could not have been rejected on this reason. (8). For the discussions and reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed with the direction to the respondent to reconsider the case of the respondent No. 2 for appointment on compassionate ground if she is still interested for service on suitable post as per her eligibility and qualifications.