Madhya Pradesh Rajya Sahakari … vs Vijaysingh Solanki And Ors. on 8 December, 1995

JUDGMENT

R.D. Shukla, J.

1. By this order following .L.P As. are being disposed of. The Bank has filed appeal against 24 petitioners who have also filed separate appeals. As such, appeals filed by both the parties are shown against each other. Smt. Manisha wd/o Subhas Bhanwar has filed LPA No. 86/94. No appeal has been filed by the Apex Bank in this case.

LPAs filed by MPRSB

MP. No.

L.P. As filed by petitioners

78/94

MPRSB v. Vijaysingh & Ors.

272/93

79/94

Vijaysingh v. MPRSB &0rs.

80/94

MPRSB v. Ramesh Lama & Ors.

488/93

81/94

Ramesh Lama v. MPRSB & Ors.

82/94

MPRSB v. Dayashankar & Ors.

195/93

83/94

Dayashankar v. MPRSB & Ors.

84/94

MPRSB v. Shashikant & Ors.

150/93

85/94

Shashikant v. MPRSB & Ors.

87/94

MPRSB v. Ashokkumar & Ors.

893/93

88/94

Ashokkumar v. MPRSB & Ors.

89/94

MPRSB v. Ramcharan & Ors.

788/93

90/94

Ramcharan v. MPRSB & Ors.

91/94

MPRSB v. Ramjilal & Ors.

860//93

92/94

Ramjilal v. MPRSB & Ors.

93/94

MPRSB v. Jagdish & Ors.

501/93

94/94

Jagdish v. MPRSB & Ors.

95/94

MPRSB v. Shailash & Ors.

892/93

96/94

Shailash v. MPRSB & Ors.

97/94

MPRSB v. Shrikishan & Ors.

2/93

98/94

Shrikishan v. MPRSB & Ors.

99/94

MPRSB v. Mohanlal & Ors.

815/93

100/94

Mohanlal v. MPRSB & Ors.

101/94

MPRSB v. Sharadkumar & Ors.

1130/93

102/94

Sharadkumar v. MPRSB & Ors.

103/94

MPRSB v. Maheshkumar & Ors.

490/93

104/94

Maheshkumar v. MPRSB & Ors.

105/94

MPRSB v. Mukeshkumar & Ors.

149/93

106/94

Mukeshkumar v. MPRSB & Ors.

107/94

MPRSB v. Omprakash & Qrs.

193/93

108/94

Omprakash v. MPRSB & Ors.

109/94

MPRSB v. Sundarlal & Ors.

489/93

110/94

Sundarlal v. MPRSB & Ors

111/94

MPRSB v. Smt. Sushilabai & Ors.

2114/93

112/94

Smt. Sushilabai v. MPRSB & Ors.

113/94

MPRSB v. Premchand & Ors.

197/93

114/94

Premchand v. MPRSB & Ors.

115/94

MPRSB v. Munna Noria & Ors.

751/93

116/94

Munna Noria v. MPRSB & Ors.

117/94

MPRSB v. Sudama Pd. & Ors.

196/93

118/94

Sudama Pd. Tiwari v. MPRSB & Ors.

119/94

MPRSB v. Surendra & Ors.

270/93

120/94

Surendrakumar v. MPRSB & Ors.

121/94

MPRSB v. Deepakkumar & Ors.

271/93

122/94

Deepakkumar v. MPRSB & Ors.

123/94

MPRSB v. Smt. Ranjana & Ors.

273/93

124/94

Smt. Ranjana v. MPRSB & Ors.

125/94

MPRSB v. Prahlad Devda & Ors.

274/93

126/94

Prahlad Devda v. MPRSB & Ors.

194/93

86/94

Smt. Manisha wd/o Subhash

Bhanwar v. MPRSB & Ors

Subhash Bhanwar, husband of Smt. Manisha (Appellant in LPA No. 86/94) was appointed as driver. He died. As such, Smt. Manisha has filed M. P No. 194/93 for being given appointment on compassionate ground.

2. National Co-operative Development Corporation (hereinafter referred to as ‘NCDC’) floated a scheme for constructing godowns at various places. M. P. Rajya Sahakari Bank (Maryadit) (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Apex Bank’) was appointed as Executing Agency.

3. The petitioners were appointed and holding posts as shown against each of the petitions as below.-

M.P.272/93 – Chowkidar

M.P.488/93 – Peon

M.P. 195/93 – Chowkidar

M.P. 150/93 – Driver

M.P.893/93 – Chowkidar

M.P.788/93 – Chowkidar

M.P. 860/93 – Driver

M.P.501/93 – Chowkidar

M.P. 892/93 – Sub -Engineer

M.P.812/93 – Chowkidar

M.P.815/93 – Chowkidar

M.P.1130/93 – Asst. Engineer

M.P. 490/93 – Chowkidar

M.P. 149/93 – Sub -Engineer

M.P. 193/93 -Driver

M.P.489/93 – Driver

M.P.2114/93 – Sweeper Part -time

M.P. 197/93 – Chowkidar

M.P.751/93 – Driver

M.P.196/93 – Driver

M.P.270/93 – Sub -Engineer

M.P.271/93 – Chowkidar

M.P. 273/93 – Junior Asst

M.P.274/93 – Chowkidar

M.P. 194/93 – Driver (Dead).

4. All these petitioners were initially appointed as Daily Wagers but they were continued in Services for years. After completion of the work of construction of godowns i.e. after completion of the project the employees were recommended to be absorbed in District Central Co-operative Banks at various places. The State Government who is respondent No. 4 here and was respondent No. 4 in the petition, sanctioned the absorption in the District Central Co-operative Banks (hereinafter referred to as ‘District Bank’). The employees herein were directed to join within 15 days. However, as they were not relieved in time and their absorption and postings in District Bank and further apprehended inadequacy of payment and therefore, they filed separate petitions seeking a direction prohibiting discontinuance from service and granting regularisation with further prayer of adoption of petition on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

5. The Petitioners pressed mainly the following point during the hearing of the petition. –

“The work of project is not over. The Tenders have been notified for remaining work at various places and, therefore, service could not be discontinued on the ground of cessation of work or abolition of post”.

It was further contended that the petitioners have continued in service ranging from 6 to 14 years and, therefore, their discontinuation from service is unjust. They have now become overage. That would disentitle them for getting appropriate job. The Apex Bank was under a legal obligation to regularise their services and pay proper salary on the principle of equal pay for equal work.

7. Respondents it is alleged have adopted a policy of pick and choose and junior persons have been retained in service while senior persons have been thrown away.

8. Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 in the petition (i.e. appellant and respondent No. 4 here) pleaded by way of Return that Apex Bank was only an executing agency and the appointment was only for a limited period for the duration of project. They were appointed on fixed pay, The Apex Bank further submitted that the petitioners were appointed only for the project work which has come to a close, as such they have acquired no right to remain on the posts they were occupying and for regularisation and other reliefs claimed by them. The NCDC has also partially supported the contention of the Apex Bank without owning any responsibility of employment and its continuance and similar is the position of State of M. P and Registrar, Co-operative Societies.

9. Learned Single Judge disposed of petitions with following directions.-

“(a) The petitioners shall not be removed from service without proper and legal grounds, just on the plea of closure of Project and without reasonable opportunity of hearing to the concerning individual.

(b) The petitioners shall be considered for absorption/regularisation against sanctioned posts, as may be found in existence at present and as may be available hereafter without unnecessary delay and for this purpose the Respondent No. 1 shall prepare list of all persons similarly situate and grant all benefits according to seniority and merit ensuring absence of arbitrariness and hostile discrimination with due regard to Article 14/21 of the Constitution of India.

(c) Absorption/Regularisation shall be considered from the date of vacancy and arrears of emoluments, if any, shall be paid to such petitioners who are found eligible and entitled for the same from retrospective dates of vacancies.

(d) The petitioners shall not be transferred or displaced to different places or units without issuance of order for absorption/ regularisation.”

10. Both the parties as shown in para 1 above have filed appeals. The contention of learned counsel Shri A.M. Mathur appearing for Apex Bank is as follows :-

Firstly, that the petitioners are employees under a project. The project was floated by N.C.D.C. Apex Bank was appointed as an executive agency and, therefore, after expiry of the project or on project’s work coming to an end petitioners lost their right of further continuance in service.

Secondly, the funds for the scheme were made available by NCDC and after the close of the project N.C.D.C. has stopped financing.

These appointments were not against the sanctioned posts and were purely temporary in nature. The petitioners entered into service on a specific contract of pay and emoluments and for specific work of project, therefore, they cannot demand regularisation of their service after completion of the project. As such direction against the termination of their services on completion of project and consequent regularisation is illegal.

11. As against it, learned counsel for the respondents Shri Sanyal has submitted that since the petitioners have been in the employment for a long period ranging from 6 to 14 years (varying in individual case) and, therefore, they are entitled to be regularised and they cannot be removed from services except on disciplinary grounds.

The second contention of the learned counsel for
the petitioners is that the Apex Bank had also
discriminated in matters of payment and the
petitioners ought to have been paid like any other
employee of the Apex Bank and, therefore, all arrears
on the basis of equal pay for equal work be directed
to be paid to them.

The third contention of the learned counsel for petitioners is that Apex Bank be directed to pay backwages and arrears to the petitioners which direction learned Single Judge has failed to give. It has also been submitted that the project work has not come to an end.

12. During the course of arguments learned counsel for petitioners in LPA 102/94 filed an application for taking a paper-news into consideration and for admission in evidence which shows that Government of M. P. has abolished the system of attachment.

One more application was filed whereby it has been tried to state that some engineers junior to the petitioner have been attached to Apex Bank while the petitioner has not been retained and has been directed to join, in the District Co-operative Bank.

13. We would like to dispose of these applications first. The news item shown in ‘Nai Duniya’ cannot be taken to be a proof. This did not appear to be a press statement issued by the State Government. Under the circumstances this paper-news cannot be acted upon.

14. So far as the second application is concerned, that will take care of while passing final order in the matter.

15. We would first like to deal with the challenge to the fact of coming to an end of the project or scheme as contended and pleaded by Apex Bank.

16. On perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge it is evident that the fact of project having come to an end has not been seriously challenged and the same cannot be allowed to be agitated now in LPA.

17. A letter of M.P.R.S.B. (Maryadit) Apex Bank to Branch Manager, Rajya Sahakari Bank, Indore as shown at Page 119 of Paper-book of LPA No. 106/94, clearly shows that the NCDC Project is already over on June 30, 1992. The Apex Bank in its reply as shown at pages 68 to 81 of the Paper-book of LPA 106/94 has very clearly stated that the project work has come to an end and the process of closing same is on. There was no serious challenge to this by the petitioners before the learned Single Judge and, therefore, the same cannot be allowed to be agitated by now.

18. The appointment letters issued as shown at pages 18 to 26 of the said Paper-book go to show that the appointments were purely temporary and the same were being extended” from time to time according to the need. The order at Page 26 of the said Paper-book clearly shows that the services were to be terminated on completion of one year. This further goes to show and as observed by learned Single Judge that the appointments were purely temporary and the petitioners were either employed as temporary employees or as daily wage earners. We, therefore, proceed with the assumption that the appointments were purely temporary for certain period and was for a particular project. Some of the petitioners were appointed as daily wage earners which continued year after year.

19. This fact that the petitioners were employed under the NCDC Project was also not seriously controverted and, therefore, we also accept it that the petitioners were employees under NCDC Project. The Project was financed by NCDC and Ape’x Bank was appointed as executing agency. Thus, it comes out that the work was not of a permanent nature nor appointments were against the permanent sanctioned posts.

During the course of arguments both the counsel ultimately agreed to the facts referred to above, we would, therefore, decide the case on the basis of facts as enumerated above.

20. Learned counsel for the appellants Apex Bank has submitted that since this was a project work financed by NCDC the petitioners were purely temporary appointees either as daily wage earners or under a contract service and that the project has come to an end and, therefore, they are not entitled to the regularisation or continuance in the service as a matter of right.

21. As against it learned counsel for petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have got a fundamental right of livelihood and as they have worked for nearly 6 to 14 years they are entitled to be regularised and for continuance of service as directed by learned Single Judge.

22. While granting relief in such cases the Court has to take into consideration whether the employee has been working against a permanent sanctioned post or was temporarily appointed for a particular period or for a particular work.

23. Though. Directive Principle of the Constitution of India (under Article 41) makes a provision that the State shall within the limits of its economic capacity and development effective provision for securing the right to work but that has not been accepted to be a fundamental right till date as the economic capacity of the State is not sufficient to ensure right to work to all the able-bodied and qualified persons.

This country has so far not found it feasible to incorporate the right to livelihood as a fundamental right in the Constitution. This is because the country has so far not attained the capacity to guarantee it, and not because it considers it any less fundamental to life. Advisedly, therefore, it has been placed in the Chapter of Directive Principles Article 41 of which enjoins upon the State to make effective provision for securing the same “within the limits of its economic capacity and development.” Thus even while giving the direction to the State to ensure the right to work, the Constitution-makers thought it prudent not to do so without qualifying it…. (1992 –II-LLJ-452) (SC)Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union v. Delhi Administration, Delhi and Ors.)

24. It is noteworthy that at no stage any regular posts were created under the Apex Bank either for Engineers and Supervisors clerks and drivers and as the project was financed by NCDC the Apex Bank (Appellant) cannot be compelled to regularise the service of petitioners here. A similar question arose before the Apex Court of the country in a dispute between Delhi Development Horticulture Employees’ Union and D.A.D. case (supra) their Lordships of the Supreme Court rejected the contention of daily wagers to be regularised with following observation.- at P.457
“At no stage any regular posts were created under the DRDA either for Supervisors etc. or for the labourers, as it was not possible to do so since the schemes were financed by the Government of India, and the DRDA was only the implementing machinery for the employment programme under the said scheme.”

Under this Project Apex Bank (Appellant) was required to construct godowns at various districts and Sub-divisional Head Quarters. The godowns were financed by NCDC. The Apex Bank (Appellant) was appointed as an Executing Agency and, therefore, employees recruited and appointed for the purpose of this project would not be deemed to be regular employees of Apex Bank. They have not been appointed against the sanctioned posts of Apex Bank and, therefore, they are not entitled for continuance and regularisation of the service.

25. In the case referred above the earlier decisions of Supreme Court passed in W. P. No. 818/89 were reviewed and, therefore the case referred by learned counsel for petitioners as reported in 1992 4 SCC 115, Delhi Administration and Ors. v. Vijay Pal Sharma and AIR 1991 SC 2088, All Manipur Regular Posts Vacancies Substitute Teachers’ Association v. State of Manipur are of no help to the petitioners.

“For regularisation, there must be regular and
permanent posts or it must be established that
although the work is of regular and permanent
nature, the device of appointing and keeping the
workers on ad hoc or temporary basis has been
resorted to, deny them the legitimate benefits of
permanent employment.” (1992-II-LLJ-452)
(SC)

26. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court while
deciding the case D.D.H.E.U. (supra) had made
following observations in para 23 of their judgment
which is as follows :- at page 459 ;

“Apart from the fact that the petitioners cannot be directed to be regularised for the reasons given above, we may take note of the pernicious consequences to which the direction for regularisation of workmen on the only ground that they have put in work for 240 or more days, has been leading. Although there is Employment Exchange Act which requires recruitment on the basis of registration in the Employment Exchange, it has become a common practice to ignore the Employment Exchange and the persons registered in the Employment Exchange, and to employ and get employed directly those who are either not registered with the Employment Exchange or who though registered are lower in the long waiting list in the Employment Register. The Courts can take judicial notice of the fact that such employment is sought and given directly for various illegal considerations including money. The employment is given first for temporary period with technical breaks to circumvent the relevant rules, and is continued for 240 or more days with a view to give the benefit of regularisation knowing the judicial trend that those who have completed 240 or more days are directed to be automatically regularised. A good deal of illegal employment market has developed resulting in a new source of corruption and frustration of those who are waiting at the Employment Exchange for years. Not all those who gain such back-door entry in the employment are in need of the particular jobs. Though already employed elsewhere, they join the jobs for better and secured prospects. That is why most of the cases which come to the courts are of employment in Government Departments, Public Undertakings or Agencies. Ultimately it is the people who bear the heavy burden of the surplus labour.”

In our opinion it should always be kept in mind while giving any direction for regularisation.

27. Similar view was expressed by their Lordships in a case reported in (1994-II-LLJ-977) (SC) Madhyamik Siksha Parishad v. Anilkumar Mishra and Ors. Their Lordships observed thus: P 978
“Regularisation – Right of – Workers on temporary assignment only, working on unsanctioned posts -No right of regularisation exists for such employees.”

28. However, since most of these petitioners have been working with the Apex Bank for about 6 to 14 years many of them may have become overage and, therefore, certain directions on compensate (sic. compassionate) grounds can be given for providing them an opportunity of employment. It may be against future vacancies or against the vacancies present in other branches of Bank under the control of Apex Bank. In a case reported in AIR 1994 SC 216, C. A. ShankarPrasad and Ors.-v. Karnataka State Adult Education Council and Ors.; Their Lordships observed:

“We are, however of the view that the petitioner having served the Adult Education Council for over a decade the Council which is still operating must utilise the services of these petitioners if and when some vacancies are made available. We, therefore direct that all the vacancies after the closure of the Central Sector Scheme which have become available or will arise in future under the control of the Adult Education Council be offered to the petitioners keeping in view their eligibility and experience.”

29. Now we come to the second question which was hardly contested by the parties as to whether the petitioners are entitled for backwages and arrears of pay on the basis of equal pay for equal work. Learned counsel for petitioners has referred to a case reported in (1994-II-LLJ-710) (SC); Vijaykumar and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors. where the part-time lecturers who were not gainfully employed elsewhere and were working for more hours every day as compared to regularly appointed lecturers were held to be entitled to be paid according to minimum of pay scale prescribed for regularly appointed lecturers duties of which post they were discharging.

30. We are in respectful agreement with the observations of their lordships. But here the case is different. Petitioners were appointed purely on temporary basis either as daily wage workers or on the basis of contract service. There are no sanctioned posts with the Apex Bank. The project was for a limited period. The petitioners accepted the job knowing fully well that the job was of temporary nature and for a limited period. They have never raised this plea earlier before their discontinuance or absorption under a scheme in District Banks working under the Apex Bank. Thus, their claim now has become old and stale as well. In our opinion, therefore, the petitioners in this case are neither entitled for back wages nor for arrears of pay as demanded by them.

This principle of equal pay for equal work is an ideal that ought to have been achieved but these lofty ideals are difficult to be achieved with the present economic capacity of the nation.

31. It is a matter of common experience that the seekers of job and employment are much more in number than the jobs available. Only certain percentage of fortunate persons get the employment. Many others just remained contented for whatever job they receive for earning their livelihood. A labour working with the spade in the agricultural field gets much less than what a labour working with a spade gets in iron and steel, coal mines and Indian Railways. Persons who are already in employment because of their own needs and because of the power they enjoy because of the unions would not allow the freezing wages till person at the lowest level is brought to the same standard. Thus, the principle of equal pay for equal work remains only a lofty ideal to be achieved. We are afraid if a direction or a mandate for equal pay for equal work even for temporary nature of work under a scheme issued it would be difficult to give even for a few days employment to many unemployed persons. In a country like this where millions and millions of persons are wandering for want of job, will have to be provided even partial employment, be it with lesser wages for their sustenance and livelihood and, therefore, whenever such works are undertaken by the State for providing part employment / temporary employment or a periodical employment to persons for their sustenance and livelihood they cannot be permitted to agitate that they should be given the same pay as other employees with similar nature of work are getting or else the State and the Institutions who are working under the State or which can be termed to be the State under Article 12 of the Constitution shall refrain from undertaking such scheme and work and the seekers of the job would be deprived of whatever partial employment they can be provided under such schemes.

32. Learned counsel for the petitioners has re
ferred to a case reported in (1988-I – LLJ -370) Daily
Rated, Casual Labour Employed under P&T De
partment v. Union of India and Ors. and a case
reported in (1990 – II-LLJ- 28) Dr. V. L. Chandra and Ors. v. All India Institute of Medical Sciences and Ors. in support of his contention.

In the first case the casual labourers in Post and Telegraph Department were denied minimum pay. The same was held to be exploitation of labour and was held that the classification of casual labourers for purposes of payment at different rates of wages is violative of Constitution.

33. This is not the case here, the petitioners were employees under a project that too under a contract for specific period and as daily wages.

In the second case their Lordships of the Supreme Court gave ‘ directions to Indian Council of Medical Research to offer adequate employment to researchers within a specific period. The facts of that case were absolutely different.

34. Though, it is true that the principles of equal pay for equal work ought to be followed between similarly employed employees, (1986 – I – LLJ -403) (SC) Surinder Singh and Anr. v. The Engineer in Chief CPWD and Ors.

But, there as observed the case is different. The persons employed as drivers, clerks, Supervisors and Engineers under the Project were not differentiated in the matter of payment and their interest were getting similar payment and the same cannot be said to be discriminatory.

35. Mr. Justice Shri A. K. Mathur (as he then was) had taken a contrary view in the matter and has held in M.P. No. 1781/93, Chabbilal and Ors. v. M.P.R.S. Bank and Ors. that the persons appointed for a project work are not entitled to be absorbed. Thus there is a conflict of opinion between learned two Single Judges i.e. view taken by Mr. Justice A. R. Tiwari in the impugned judgment and the view taken by Mr. Justice A.K.Mathur in M. P. No. 1781/93.

From the discussions in the earlier paragraphs it is evident that we are inclined to accept the view taken by Mr. A.K. Mathur, Ag.C.J. in Chabbilal’s case (supra).

36. Learned counsel for the petitioners Shri Sanyal has lastly submitted that the principle of estoppel applied against the Apex Bank as they themselves have started scheme of absorption and regularisation. We do not agree with this contention of the learned counsel. The petitioners acquire no vested right of absorption in the Apex Bank as they were not appointed against sanctioned vacant posts, but were appointed for a project work on purely temporary basis and, therefore, if out of respite or for showing clemency to petitioners, looking to the pe-riod of service rendered by them any scheme for their absorption in the DCBs against the permanent vacancy available, was taken up; that would not create any further right in favour of the petitioners, and therefore, in our opinion the principle of estoppel is not attracted in cases of these petitioners.

37. During the pendency of these appeals, with the consent of parties a committee was directed to be constituted for exploring the possibility for providing the alternative employment to the petitioners. The committee has submitted its report and shown the vacancies available at various District Co-operative Banks.

38. The committee consisting of the representatives of the Apex Bank (Appellant) has submitted its report and shown the vacancies available at various places including Apex Bank and the District Cooperative Banks working under it. Under the circumstances, it would be in fitness of things to grant certain reliefs regarding extending the facility of giving alternative jobs to the petitioners.

39. The learned Single Judge has given certain relief of absorption of petitioners. We do not agree with respect to the direction of absorption and regularisation of services of petitioners with the Apex Bank as a matter of right.

40. But, in view of the vacancies reported by the Committee we modify the order of learned Single Judge as follows and dispose of these appeals accordingly.

In the result the appeal filed by the Apex Bank partly succeeds. The appeal filed by the petitioners for payment of back wages and arrears is dismissed, as they are not entitled for the same. The petitioners are not entitled for regularisation and continuation in service in Apex Bank after closure of the Project.

However, as the petitioners had been working with the Apex Bank for pretty long period and most of them may have become overage it is therefore, directed that they shall be absorbed in the Apex Bank against the permanent vacancies available as on today.

(a) This absorption shall be subject to requisite qualification provided under the Rules or Standing Instructions of the Apex Bank. However, the Bank and the Government may also relax the particular rule if the same is causing hurt to any of the petitioners.

(b) There shall be no hostile discrimination. The principle of “last come first go” shall be applied and adhered to.

(c) All other persons who cannot be absorbed shall be given alternative employment in different District Co-operative Central Banks if the posts are available there. In case, the petitioners do not accept and join alternative employment offered within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the order, they shall lose their right of alternative employment. This absorption shall be subject to the availability of the posts in DCCB.

(d) It is made clear that for implementing these directions Apex Bank shall take into consideration the cases of all such affected employees i.e. employees working under this project jointly. The employment, if available shall be given to them as per the directions and principles shown in the above paragraph.

(e) It is further clarified that if services of some persons are taken on the basis of attachment such attachment shall also be done by adopting the principle of ‘last come first go” and seniority and length of service.

41. So far as L.P.A. No. 86/94. Smt. Manisha wd/o Subhash Bhanwar v. M.P.S.R. Bank Mydt and Ors., is concerned, the petitioner is seeking employment on the basis of compassionate ground as her husband has expired during his employment with the Apex Bank. The appellant Apex Bank shall consider the case of the petitioner and provide employment on compassionate grounds (if the same is permissible under the rules and standing instructions of the Apex Bank); if she otherwise qualifies for the job, she may be given employment even in District Co-operative Bank under Apex Bank, if she is ready to accept the job offered in such bank.

In the facts and circumstances of the case, the panics shall bear their own costs.

Counsel fee Rs. 300/- in each appeal.