Patna High Court - Orders
Chairman,State Bank Of India&O vs Vinod Kumar Yadav & Anr on 18 August, 2008
Author: Kishore K. Mandal
Bench: Kishore K. Mandal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.634 of 2008
CHAIRMAN,STATE BANK OF INDIA&ORS
Versus
VINOD KUMAR YADAV & ANR
-----------
For the appellants : Mr.Arvind Kumar Jha, Advocate
-------
PRESENT
Hon'ble the Chief Justice
&
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal
------
Dated, the 18th August, 2008
The appeal suffers from delay of nineteen days. For condonation thereof an application ( I.A.No.4909/2008) has been made. Even if we condone the delay in filing the appeal, in our considered view, the appeal does not deserve to be admitted.
2. The counsel for the appellants placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and another, Vs. Somvir Singh, 2007 (2) PLJR (SC) 46. The Supreme Court in paragraphs 11, 12 and 13 of the report held thus:
11.The scheme for appointment of dependants of deceased employee on compassionate grounds framed by the appellant Bank inter alia provides that in making assessment of the financial condition of the family which is an important criterion for determining the eligibility to compassionate appointment, the following factors are required to be taken into consideration:
(a) Family pension;
(b) Gratuity amount received;
(c) Employee's/employer's contribution to provident fund;2
(d) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its welfare fund;
(e) Proceeds of LIC policy and other investments of the deceased employee;
(f) Income for family from other sources;
(g) Income of other family members from employment or otherwise;
(h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any.
12. The competent authority while considering the application had taken into consideration each one of those factors and accordingly found that the dependants of the employee who died in harness are not in penury and without any means of livelihood. The authority did not commit any error in taking the terminal benefits and the investments and the monthly family income including the family pension paid by the Bank into consideration for the purposes of deciding as to whether the family of late Zile Singh had been left in penury or without any means of livelihood. The scheme framed by the appellant Bank in fact mandates the authority to take those factors into consideration. The authority also did not commit any error in taking into consideration the income of the family from other sources viz, the agricultural land.
13. In our considered opinion, the High Court itself could not have undertaken any exercise to decide as to what would be the reasonable income which would be sufficient for the family for its survival and whether it had been left in penury or without any means of livelihood. The only question the High Court could have adverted itself to is whether the decision-making process rejecting the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment is vitiated ? Whether the order is not in conformity with the scheme framed by the appellant Bank ? It is not even urged that the order passed by the competent authority is not in accordance with the scheme. It is well settled that the hardship of the dependant does not entitle one to compassionate appointment dehors the scheme or the statutory provisions as the case may be. The income of the family from all sources is required to be taken into consideration according to the scheme which the High Court altogether ignored while remitting the matter for fresh consideration by the appellant Bank. It is not a case where the dependants of the deceased employee are left "without any means of livelihood" and unable to make both ends meet. The High Court ought not to have disturbed the finding and the conclusion arrived at by the appellant Bank that the respondent was not living hand-to-mouth. As observed by this Court in G.M. (D & PB) V. Kunti Tiwary the High Court 3 cannot dilute the criterion of penury to one of "not very well-to-do". The view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court may amount to varying the existing scheme framed by the appellant Bank. Such a course is impermissible in law."
3. The Single Judge noticed that in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents (appellants herein), it has been stated that they had paid to the writ petitioner terminal benefits available to him and looking to the value of the house and other sources notionally the dependant has means of generating a sum of Rs.3750/- per month, which according to them, is sufficient for survival.
4. The Single Judge found that the appellants have not considered the case of the original writ petitioner in true prospective. The Single Judge observed thus:
" Notional calculation of generating income per month based on a so called interest rate which the entire corpus is supposed to generate is taking a hyper technical view in the matter. Not every net worth of resources or property which in face of it is pittance can be used as a base for arriving a notional income, which may look good on paper but are never enough for the livelihood and taking needs and responsibility of family members of the deceased of which the petitioner undisputedly has to shoulder."
5. In what has been noticed by the Single Judge, with which we agree, the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Somvir Singh cannot be applied.
6. Consideration of the matter by the Single Judge does not suffer from any legal infirmity. The Single Judge has remitted the matter for consideration of the case of the original writ petitioner by the 4 appellants in accord with the policy, which does not appear to be flawed.
7. LPA is, accordingly, dismissed in limine. This disposes of I.A.No.4909 of 2008.
8. At this stage, the counsel for the appellants prays for extension of time for consideration of the original petitioner's application for appointment on compassionate ground as directed by this court. He also gives an undertaking on behalf of the appellants that within the extended period as per the order of the Single Judge, the petitioner's case shall be considered afresh.
9. We accept the undertaking given by the appellants and extend the time for consideration of the case of the original writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground by further period of three months.
R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J.
Sunil/