Chattisgarh High Court
Vivek Martin vs Assistant General Manager on 17 August, 2022
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Page 1 of 6
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WPS No. 3608 of 2021
Vivek Martin S/o Late Suresh Martin, aged about 23 years R/o Ward No. 4,
Madhukar Gali, Kasturba Nagar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Assistant General Manager Canara Bank, General Administration
Section, Regional Office, 3rd Floor, Rama Port, Vyapar Vihar Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
2. Chief Manager Canara Bank, Main Branch, Opposite Old High Court
Building Bilaspur Chhattisgarh
3. Branch Manager Canara Bank, Rajkishore Nagar Branch, Address
A/28, Near Ganesh Sweets, Seepat Road, Rajkishore Nagar, Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
_____________________________________________________________ For Petitioner : Mr. A.S. Rajput, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate.
_____________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Order On Board 17.08.2022
1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the Memo dated 07.10.2020 passed by the Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank, by which the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected.
2. The brief facts reflected from the record are that the petitioner's father was working as Peon in the respondent bank, who expired on 26.08.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 13.05.2020 and the same was rejected vide memo dated 07.10.2020.
Page 2 of 63. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per scheme of grant of compassionate appointment dated 20.03.2015 which was applicable at the time of death of the petitioner's father various procedures have to be followed while considering the application for grant of compassionate appointment. The Clause 19 of the scheme provides general rules which provides procedure to be followed and as per sub-clause 7 of the said Clause 19 while considering the case of grant of compassionate appointment a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities including the benefits received under the various scheme mentioned above and all other relevant factors such as presence of an earning member, size of the family etc.
4. From bare perusal of this Clause it is evident that bank has to assess the financial condition of the deceased employees family after taking into the benefits which have been payable to the family as per the welfare schemes framed by the bank in this regard.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from bare perusal of Annexure-P/1, it is crystal clear that the bank has not examined the case of the petitioner as per sub-clause 7 of Clause 19 of the scheme.
6. The learned counsel for the Bank would submit that the bank in the return filed before this Court has submitted the details of the benefits which have been paid to the family member and also details of the benefits which have been paid. From the return it is reflected that the deceased is having a house property valued at Rs.30 lacs. It has also been mentioned that dependents have received Rs.16,29,575/- and getting family pension of Rs.15,649/- since April, 2020. It has also been stated that family members of the deceased have received Rs.6,25,888.37/- and Rs.6,23,293.15/- towards provident fund. The dependents have also received Rs.3,29,268/-. In the return it has also Page 3 of 6 been mentioned that deceased family members have cleared Rs.1,72,431/- towards loan for purchasing of the vehicle. Thus, the deceased family members have sufficient income and their application has rightly been rejected by respondents through Annexure-P/1 which is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court. In support of his submission, he has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India vs. Jaspal Kaur, reported in 2007 Volume 9 SCC 571 and would pray dismissal of the writ petition.
7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with this petition.
8. From the pleadings of the parties it is not in dispute that the family members of the deceased employee have received financial benefits through gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund, family pension, Life Insurance Corporation and financial consideration may be a ground for denying the compassionate appointment as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5111 of 2022 in case of Central Bank of India vs. Nitin decided on 03.08.2022 wherein, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after examining the various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at Paragraph 19, 20 and 21 as under:-
"19. In our view, the Division Bench patently erred in arriving at the finding that whether the family was indigent or not could not be a ground for refusing compassionate appointment to a candidate who was otherwise eligible for appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme.
20. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is an exception to the rule of equality, which enables the dependent family members of a medically incapacitated Page 4 of 6 employee who has no option, but to retire, or a deceased employee, to tide over the immediate crisis caused by the incapacitation or death of the breadwinner. Compassionate Appointment excludes equally or more meritorious candidates, much in need of a job, from the zone of consideration. Consideration for compassionate appointment must, therefore, be strictly in accordance with the prevalent rules for compassionate appointment applicable to the deceased/prematurely retired employee.
21. In this case, there is a financial criteria of eligibility for compassionate appointment under the Compassionate Appointment Scheme. Rules which provide for a financial criteria for appointment on Compassionate ground are valid and lawful rules which have to be construed strictly, as otherwise the quota reserved for compassionate appointment would be filled up excluding others who might be in greater and/or far more acute financial distress. "
9. From the above stated legal position and considering the scheme framed by the bank there is no quarrel with regard to the preposition that consideration or non-consideration of compassionate appointment, the financial position of a member of the deceased employees is relevant factor. But whether the respondent have carried out this exercise which has been provided in sub-clause 7 of Clause 19 of the circular dated 20.03.2015 before rejecting the claim of the petitioner vide Annexure P/1. For better understanding of the lis between the parties it is expedient for this Court to extract the Clause 7 which reads as under:-
"An application for compassionate appointment shall, however, not be rejected merely on the ground that Page 5 of 6 the family of the employee has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering a request for appointment on compassionate grounds, a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family etc."
10. The respondent bank while rejecting the claim of the petitioner has nowhere mentioned whether the assets/retiral dues of the deceased employee are sufficient to maintain the family of a deceased employee which is paramount consideration as per the sub-clause 7 of Clause 19 of the scheme. The order impugned Annexure-P/1 is silent to that effect. The respondent have made an attempt to justify the order by supplementing the grounds, which was not part of the order Annexure P/1 but justifying the rejection order by mentioning in the reply filed before this Court. This practice has not been approved by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the judgment of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner reported in (1978) (1) SCC 405, wherein Hon'ble the Supreme Court has held at paragraph 8 as under:-
"8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought ,out. We may here draw attention to the observations of Bose J. in Gordhandas Bhanji.
Public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in Ms mind, or what he intended to, do. Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to effect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and Page 6 of 6 must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.
Orders are not like old wine becoming better as they grow older:"
11. Thus, considering the clause of the compassionate appointment policy framed by the bank and the impugned order Annexure P/1, it is quite vivid that the same has not been passed in conformity with sub-clause 7 of Clause 19 which provides that the bank has to assess objectively the assets and liability including the retiral dues which is being payable to the family members of the deceased employee. The order dated dated 07.10.2020 (Annexure-P/1) does not reflect consideration of these aspect, therefore, Annexure-P/1 deserves to be set aside and it is accordingly set aside.
12. The respondent bank is directed to re-examine the matter and pass a well-reasoned order considering the assets and liabilities and also examine the case of the petitioner in terms of the sub-clause 7 of Clause 19 of the policy strictly which provides bank authorities to keep balance between the assets and the liabilities of family of deceased while considering the claim for compassionate appointment.
13. The said exercise should be carried out within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this Order.
14. With the aforesaid observation and direction the writ petition is allowed in part.
Sd/-
(Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Saurabh