Allahabad High Court
Brijesh Kumar vs Union Bank Of India Through Its Chaiman ... on 18 May, 2016
Author: Devendra Kumar Arora
Bench: Devendra Kumar Arora
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
AFR
Reserved
Court No. 24
Writ Petition No.5266 of 2002(SS)
Brijesh Kumar ......Petitioner
Versus
Union Bank of India & others ......Opposite parties
Hon'ble Dr. Devendra kumar Arora, J.
Heard Mr Jitendra Singh, Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Mohd. Altaf Mansoor, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondent-Bank.
Petitioner's father, namely, Om Ratan, who was a Class IV employee in Union Bank of India, Kanpur, died in harness on 14.2.1997 during service. Petitioner, who is the eldest son moved an application seeking appointment on compassionate grounds alongwith No Objection Certificate of his mother and younger brother. When no action was taken by the authorities of the Bank for quite long time on the said application, the petitioner knocked the door of this court by filing the instant writ petition.
This Court while entertaining the writ petition on 23.9.2002 directed the opposite parties to scrutinize the petitioner's representation for his appointment under Dying-in Harness Rules and decide the same by virtue of a reasoned order in accordance with the Rules.
In compliance of the aforesaid order dated 23.9.2002, the application of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was considered by the General Manager (Personnel), who rejected the same vide order dated 17.10.2002.
Against the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, the petitioner amended the writ petition and challenged the aforesaid order dated 17.10.2002 on the ground that the same had been rejected in an arbitrary manner by saying that the opposite parties have paid a sum of Rs. 1,11,023/- as terminal benefits and the family of the petitioner would be receiving Rs. 3,301/- per month towards family pension.
It has also been contended that the General Manager (Personnel)/opposite party no.4 had adopted a discriminatory attitude towards the petitioner as one Sri Mukesh Kumar, son of late Govind, was given appointment on compassionate ground even though his family received terminal benefits to the tune of Rs. 4,50,000/- approximately.
Lastly, it has been contended that the opposite parties manifestly and erroneously ignored the fact that neither the petitioner nor any of his family members have any source of income except the family pension.
To strengthen his aforesaid assertion, reliance has been placed on Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation; 2005 SCC (L & S) 590, Ram Pyarey vs. State Bank of India; 2001(2) UPLBEC 1575, Dhiraj Kumar Dixit Vs. G.M.(Personnel) UCO Bank; 2003(1) UPLBEC 20, State Bank of India Vs.Ram Pyarey; 2001(2)UPLBEC 1597 and Canara Bank and another vs. M.Mahesh Kumar [2015(33)LCD 2058].
While justifying the impugned order rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment, it has been urged by Sri M.Altaf Mansoor that the appointment on compassionate is given in pursuance of a non-statutory scheme formulated by the respondent-Bank, keeping in mind the observations of the Apex Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs.State of Haryana (1994) 4 SCC 138. As per the scheme, the compassionate appointment is to be offered by the Bank only in cases where the Bank is satisfied with the financial condition of the family is such that but for the provision of employment, the family would not be able to meet the crisis.
As far as the case of the petitioner is concerned, on examination, it was found that the family of Late Shri Om Ratan Mahaveer was receiving Rs. 3,301/- per month as family pension and had already received terminal benefits amounting to Rs. 1,03,023/- considering the liabilities as nil as informed by the petitioner. In these circumstances, the bank has rightly declined to grant appointment on compassionate ground to the petitioner.
As regards to giving appointment to one Mukesh Kumar son of Late Sri Govind Kumar, it has been submitted that deceased Mukesh Kumar was not a pension optee. The net terminal benefits received by the family of late Sri Govind Kumar were only Rs. 1,84,370/- only which if invested @ 10 % per annum would have fetched them only Rs. 1,536/- as monthly income which the Bank considered as insufficient to tide over the financial crisis of the family. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of compassionate appointment.
In this very case, on the demise of Om Ratan, the petitioner staked his claim but his claim was rejected on the ground that there is sufficient fund with the family to tide over the sudden crisis. It is settled law that while considering compassionate appointment, the Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and only if, it is satisfied that but for the provisions of employment, the family would not be able to meet the crisis than a job is offered to the eligible member of the family.
There is no dispute to the fact that the scheme for grant of compassionate appointment to the dependent of a deceased employee formulated by the Bank is a non-statutory scheme. The Scheme provides for appointment of dependents of a deceased employee dying in harness and leaving his/her family in penury and without any means of livelihood.
As a rule, appointments in the public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Government nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interest of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favor of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration, taking into account the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment.
Thus, it can be easily summed up that the whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post, much less a post held by the deceased. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood.
In Punjab National Bank and others vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja (2004) 7 SCC 265, the questioned cropped up for consideration before the Apex Court was whether the retiral benefits are to be taken into consideration while dealing with the prayer for compassionate appointment. The Apex Court on the basis of earlier decision rendered in G.M. (D&PB) vs. Kunti Tiwary; (2004) 7 SCC 271 it was categorically held that the amounts have to be taken into consideration. In Union Bank of India and others vs. M.T. Latheesh, which has been relied upon by the respondents, the Bank approached the Apex Court against the judgment of the High Court of Kerala whereby the Bank was ordered to grant employment to the respondent. The Apex Court while setting aside the order of the High Court of Kerala observed that the right accrued to the deceased's heir/applicant is a right to get preferential treatment against the general principle of appointment , subject to the direction of the Bank. In other words the employer is not under obligation to grant appointment to the dependents. The duty of the employer is only to properly consider the application.
It is also settled law that the specially constituted authorities in the rules or regulations like the competent authority in this care are better equipped to decide the cases on facts of the case and their objective finding, arrived after the appreciation of the full facts should not be disturbed.
In the present case, by declining the application submitted by the petitioner after proper consideration of the same in the light of the relevant parameters, the Bank cannot be said to have acted in an arbitrary manner. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to claim relief under the Scheme formulated by the Bank because financial consideration of the family is not so low that but for the provision of employment, the family would not be able to meet the crisis.
As regard the discrimination, I find force in the submissions advanced by the learned Counsel for the Bank that while the family of the petitioner was receiving pension whereas late Sri Govid Kumar was not a pension optee and as such his family was not reeving monthly pension. Therefore, it is wrong to say that the petitioner has been discriminated in the matter of giving compassionate appointment. The justification given by the Bank for non-consideration of the petitioner's appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that the other cases relate to non pensionable category appears to be reasonable and sound. The compassionate appointment sought by the petitioner was rightly denied by the Bank on the ground that there was no financial hardship being faced by the deceased's family as they had received money, which was substantial at the relevant time, after the death of petitioner's father and the family was also receiving monthly pension. Therefore, the case laws relied upon by the petitioner's Counsel are of no avail to him.
Before parting, I would like to mention that it is settled law that the compassionate employment has to be granted in very rare necessitous circumstances.
In the circumstances of the case, I am of the view that there is no infirmity in the impugned order dated 17.10.2002 passed by opposite party no.4 and the writ petition lacks merit which is hereby dismissed.
Costs easy.
Date : 18th May, 2016
MH/-