Allahabad High Court
Smt. Atro Devi Wife Of Late Dharampal ... vs Punjab National Bank Through Its ... on 25 July, 2006
Equivalent citations: 2007(1)AWC289
Author: D.P. Singh
Bench: D.P. Singh
JUDGMENT D.P. Singh, J.
1. Heard Sri Vinod Sinha, learned Counsel for the petitioners and Sri Tarun Verma for the respondents.
2. This petition is directed against orders dated 18.6.2004 and 5.3.2005 whereby the claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents.
3. The husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2 Sri Dharam Pal Singh died in harness on 3.3.2003 while working as cashier-cum-clerk in Punjab National Bank. The claim for appointment of petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground was rejected vide order dated 18.6.2004 mentioning that the family was in receipt of the terminal dues and was receiving family pension etc. However, application was again moved bringing to the notice of the respondent that the deceased left behind a large family including unmarried daughters and the terminal benefit and the monthly pension was not sufficient to meet the financial requirement, in pursuance of which the petitioner was informed that the matter be treated as closed, thus, the petition.
4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the terminal benefits and pension given at the time of death cannot be taken into consideration for the purposes of adjudging the financial position of the distressed family. In support of his contention he has relied upon a Single Judge decision of this Court rendered in the case of Smt. Kanti Srivastava v. State Bank of India and Ors. decided on 14.2.2003, (Writ Petition No. 35344 of 2001). He has also urged that looking to the size of the family specially the unmarried daughters, the amount said to be paid to the petitioners was not sufficient to make two ends meet and, therefore, he is entitled to appointment.
5. The concept of compassionate appointment is an antithesis to the normal recruitment rules and is saved at the altar of Articles 14 and 16 by reasons of humanitarian consideration. The sole object of compassionate appointment is to give succour to the distressed bereaved family of the sole bread earner so that they are able to tide over the sudden financial crisis. It does not require reference to decisions of the Apex Court to say that neither it is a right nor can it be treated an alternative source of recruitment. By giving compassionate appointment, the sole object is to strengthen the financial position of the family which is deprived of the regular salary earned by the deceased sole bread earner. If otherwise, the family, inspite of the demise of the bread winner, is financially comfortably placed, the heirs or the dependent cannot seek compassionate employment as it would amount to violation of the sacrosanct object of the compassionate appointment. Keeping that in view, the claim of the petitioner is to be examined.
6. Compassionate appointment in the respondent Bank is governed by a scheme known as 'Scheme for Employment of the Dependent of the Employees who died while working in the Bank'. One of the most important ingredient for grant of compassionate appointment as mentioned in the scheme is the financial condition of the family. It is provided in the scheme that the financial condition of the family would be examined after considering the family pension, gratuity received, provident fund; compensation by the Bank or Welfare fund, Insurance proceeds etc. It is apparent from the record that the petitioners received a total sum of Rs. 5,81,272/- inclusive of terminal dues, Insurance amount etc. and they are also getting Rs. 4,198/- per month as pension and they have their own dwelling concrete house. Though, it is contended that a sum of Rs. 2,85,000/- was spent on the medical treatment of the deceased employee, the bank had reimbursed a sum of Rs. 1,10,000/- only as vouchers and bills for the said amount were found admissible. No doubt the petitioner has a large family, but the amount received in lump sum and the monthly pension cannot be said to be meager.
7. From a perusal of the scheme, it does not appear that it is arbitrary, however, until and unless the petitioners are able to demonstrate that taking into consideration the death-cum-retiral benefits would be illegal, his petition cannot succeed. To buttress his contention that such benefits cannot be taken into consideration to adjudge the financial condition of the family, he draws support from the Single Judge decision in the case of Smt. Kanti Srivastava (supra).
8. It would be worthwhile to note that the aforesaid scheme has been approved by the Apex Court in Punjab National Bank v. Ashwani Kumar Taneja 2004 (6) IT. 418. The ratio laid down in Smt. Kanti Srivastava's case (supra) was followed by the same learned Single Judge in a later decision of Durgesh Kumar Tiwari v. Chief, General Manager, State Bank of India decided on 20.5.2003, (Writ Petition No. 38847 of 2002) and the Bank challenged the said decision of Durgesh Kumar Tiwari (supra) before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 996 of 2006 (Chief General Manager, SBI and Ors. v. Durgesh Kumar Tiwari) where the said judgment has been held to be unsustainable in law and has been set aside. Thus, the said ratio is no longer a good law.
9. For the reasons stated above, this is not a fit case for interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Rejected.