D.K Seth, J.:— Similar question was involved in the case of Mukesh Kumar Sharma v. Senior Divisional Manager, Life Insurance Corporation of India in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 33231 of 1992 disposed of by this Court on 5th May, 1999 reported in (1999 (3) All WC 2167). 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 v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs.) reported in (1994) 2 SCC 718 : (AIR 1994 SC 2148) 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 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 bel excluded. It is contended by Mr. M. CJ 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, as sets 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.
3. 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 lifetime 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.
4. 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 shown is 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 and after considering this question, it is decided that the petitioner is not eligible for appointment. Having regard to the decision in the case of Mukesh Kumar Sharma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India (supra) and the facts disclosed above, it does not say that there is any infirmity in the decision refusing employment to the petitioner though however, the same does not disclose any reason.
5. For all these reasons, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.
6. Let a certified copy of this order be given to the counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges.
7. Petition dismissed.