# Sharma v. Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance corporation

- **Citation:** (1999) 3 ILRA 213
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 1999-05-05
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sharma-v-senior-divisional-manager-life-insurance-corporation-39385
- **Pages:** 3

## Text

3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
213
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
25,*,1$/ -85,6',&7,21
&,9,/ 6,'(
&,9,/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21
%/( '. 6(7+ -
7+( +21
%/( '. 6(7+ -
&LYLO 0LVF :ULW 3HWLWLRQ 1R RI

.LVKRUH 6LQJK VRQ RI /DWH 6UL 6KDWUXJKDQ 6LQJK
«3HWLWLRQHU
9HUVXV
6WDWH %DQN RI ,QGLD WKURXJK FKLHI *HQHUDO
DQG DQRWKHU
«5HVSRQGHQWV

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 3HWLWLRQHU

6KUL 0& 'ZLYHGL

6KUL -LWHQGUD 3DQGH\
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV

6UL 1DULQ 6LQKD

6&

$UWLFOH RI WKH &RQVWLWXWLRQ RI ,QGLD$SSRLQWPHQW XQGHU WKH
G\LQJ
LQ
+DUQHVV
5XOHV+HOGWKDW
WKH SURYLVLRQ IRU JUDQW RI
DSSRLQWPHQW XQGHU WKH G\LQJ LQ +DUQHVV UXOHV GRHV QRW FUHDWH D
ULJKW
WR
DSSRLQWPHQW
EXW
D
ULJKW
WR
EH
FRQVLGHUHG
RQ
WKH
EDFNJURXQG RI WKH TXHVWLRQ RI GHVWLWXWLRQ RI WKH IDPLO\ RQ DFFRXQW
RI VXFK GHDWK +HOG
7KHUH LV QR LQILUPLW\ LQ WKH GHFLVLRQ UHIXVLQJ HPSOR\PHQW WR WKH
SHWLWLRQHU WKRXJK KRZHYHU WKH VDPH GRHV QRW GLVFORVH DQ\ UHDVRQ
3DUD

By the Court

1. Similar question was involved in the case of Mukesh Kumar
Sharma Vs. Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance corporation
of India and another in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33231 of 1992
disposed of by this Court on 5th May, 1999 In the said case, it was
held that the provision for grant of appointment under the Dying in
Harness Rules does not create a right to appointment but a right to be
considered on the background of the question of destitution of the
family on account of such death. The Apex Court in the case of Life
Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar
(Mrs) and another reported in (1994 2 SCC 718) supports the above
view. In the said case, it was further held that marriage of a son does
not exclude him from the membership of the family. In the present
case also the question is governed by the scheme for appointment of
dependent on deceased employee on compassionate ground as
1999
------
May, 21
214 THE INDIAN LAW REPORTS [1999
contained in chapter 2 of the hand Book on Staff Matters Vol. Ii The
dependent has been defined to include widow, son including adopted
son, daughter who is fully dependent and is incapable of maintaining
himself. It also prescribes certain eligibility criteria. The son has not
been qualified as such it cannot be said that the married son is to be
excluded. It is contended by Mr. M.C. Dwivedi, learned counsel for
the petitioner that the other brothers who are married and living
separately and are not looking after the petitioner and there is no one
else on which the petitioner can depend. He was completely
dependent on his father and therefore, he is eligible for such
appointment. The said scheme further contains certain other
conditions where it is prescribed that each case is to be decided on
the basis of each individual circumstances having regard to the
income of the member of the family already employed, the size of
the family, assets and liability of the family and other relevant
considerations. Thus the scheme has not provided for an absolute
right of appointment. On the other hand, it had given certain
discretion to the Management in case of such appointment . It does
not provide that such appointment is to be given as of right and as a
matter of course. The employer has been given certain discretions in
the matter having regard to the guidelines laid down in the said
scheme.

2. In the present case, the bank had considered all those aspects as
is apparent from the statement contained in annexure-4 to the writ
petition where the particulars have been given in detail. It shows that
the deceased had two sons who were married and are in service. It is
only the petitioner who is unemployed. The other two daughters of
the deceased are already married and that the mother of the petitioner
died during the life time of the deceased father. If it is accepted that
the brothers are living separately, in that event, everyone will come
with the story that the brothers are living separately in order to
secure a job. However, such questions are question of facts which
cannot be gone into sitting in writ jurisdiction. It is for the employer
to decide such question.

3. Be that as it may, in the present case, it shows from the statement
of assets and liabilities that the deceased had been paid terminal
benefits to the extent of Rs. 1,16,372/- on account of Provident Fund,
Rs. 65,760.18 on account of Gratuity, Rs. 40,908/- on account of
Leave encashment. The total is shown Rs. 2,23,040.18. It is also
shown that there was a movable properties of Rs. 60,000/- In such
circumstances, it is pointed out by the counsel for the respondents
1999
------
Kishore Singh
 Vs.
State Bank of
India &
another
------
D. K. Seth, J.
3 All.] ALLAHABAD SERIES
215
and after considering this question, it is decided to the petitioner is
not eligible for appointment. Having regard to the decision in the
case of Mukesh Kumar Sharma Vs. Life Insurance Corporation of
India (Supra0 and the facts disclosed above, it does not say that there
is no infirmity in the decision refusing employment to the petitioner
though however, the same does not disclose any reason.

4. For all these reasons, the Writ Petition fails and is, accordingly,
dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.

5. Let a certified copy of this order be given to the counsel for the
petitioner on payment of usual charges.

Petition Dismissed.

5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
5(9,6,21$/ -85,6',&7,21
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
&5,0,1$/ 6,'(
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
'$7(' $//$+$%$'
%()25(
%()25(
7+( +21·%/( 0& -$,1
7+( +21·%/( 0& -$,1 -
-

&ULPLQDO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI

&ULPLQDO UHYLVLRQ DJDLQVW WKH RUGHU DQG MXGJPHQW GDWHG
SDVVHG E\ 6UL 8PHVK &KDQGUD 0LVUD $GGLWLRQDO 6HVVLRQV -XGJH
%DOOLD LQ &UO 5HYLVLRQ 1R RI 6DW\DGHR 6LQJK 9HUVXV 6WDWH
RI 83 DQG DQRWKHU
6DFKLGDQDQG 6LQJK 6R 1HSDO 6LQJK 5R %DLULD
36 %DLUL\D GLVWULFW %DOOLD
«$SSOLFDQW
9HUVXV
6WDWH RI 83 DQRWKHU
«2SS 3DUW\

&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HYLVLRQLVW$SSOLFDQW 6UL %1 7LZDUL
&RXQVHO IRU WKH 5HVSRQGHQWV
 $*$
 6UL 5DMHVKML 9HUPD

6HFWLRQ &U3& OHDUQHG 6HVVLRQV -XGJH WUDYHOOHG EH\RQG KLV
VFRSH
E\
UHDSSUDLVLQJ
HYLGHQFH
DGGXFHG
EHIRUH
WKH
OHDUQHG
0DJLVWUDWH E\ WKH 3DUWLHV RI WKH TXHVWLRQ RI SRVVHVVLRQ 7KH
MXGJHPHQW SDVVHG E\ KLP VXIIHUV IURP SDWHQW LPSURSULHW\ +HOG
/HDUQHG $GGLWLRQDO 6HVVLRQV -XGJH ZDV VZD\HG E\ H[WUDQHRXV
IDFWRUV LQ DGGLWLRQ RI WKH IDFW WKDW KH WUDYHOOHG EH\RQG KLV VFRSH E\
1999
------
Kishore Singh
 Vs.
State Bank of
India &
another
------
D. K. Seth, J.

1999
------
July, 30