Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Jitendra Singh vs Senior Manager Raj Gramin Bank on 14 September, 2011
Author: Ajay Rastogi
Bench: Ajay Rastogi
In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan
Jaipur Bench
**
Civil Writ Petition No.9686/2008
Jitendra Singh Versus Rajasthan Gramin Bank & Ors
Date of Order ::: 14/09/2011
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi
Mr. Mukesh Verma, for petitioner
Mr. Ajay Gupta, for respondent Bank Instant petition has been filed by son of deceased employee of respondent-Bank who died while in service holding post of Driver on 28/05/2006, assailing order dt.08/12/2006 (Ann.5) whereby holding the petitioner disentitled for compassionate appointment; it was conveyed that his application can be considered for payment of ex-Gratia compensation under the Scheme of the respondent-Bank introduced vide Circular dt. 09/10/2006, making it effective from 30/08/2006 for employees having died in harness.
It has been informed that no application was submitted by petitioner under ex-gratia Scheme introduced by the Bank but approached this Court with the grievance that on the date of death of his father (28/05/2006) and the date on which he submitted application (09/06/2006), the Scheme of Ex-gratia was not in vogue and respondent-Bank was under obligation to invoke the Scheme applicable for compassionate appointment at the time of death or on the date application was submitted by the dependent of the deceased employee contemplated under the relevant scheme.
Identical controversy was examined by this Court in CWP-64/2007 (Gaurav Saini Vs. Raj. Gramin Bank) vide order dt.19/07/2011 and it was held in the light of judgment of Apex Court in State Bank of India Vs. Raj Kumar (2010(11) SCC 661) that mere submission of application does not confer any vested right and application has to be examined under the Scheme in force at the time of it being actually considered and not when the application was made; and it was also noticed that under the new Scheme there is a condition that all the pending applications if any will be considered under the Scheme having come into force w.e.f. 30/08/2000. Relevant paras 8 & 12 of the decision in State Bank of India Vs. Raj Kumar (supra) having been taken note of by this Court in Gaurav Kr. Saini Vs. Raj. Gramin Bank (supra) read ad infra:
8. It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependents of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the Rules or by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/ withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appoint-ment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant.
12. Obviously therefore there can be no immediate or automatic appointment merely on an application. Several circumstances having a bearing on eligibility, and financial condition, upto the date of consideration may have to be taken into account. As none of the applicants under the scheme has a vested right, the scheme that is in force when the application is actually considered, and not the scheme that was in force earlier when the application was made, will be applicable.
Taking note of the principles (supra), in Gaurav Kr. Saini Vs. Raj. Gramin Bank (supra), this Court observed ad infra:
this Court is also of the view that petitioner's application was required to be considered under the scheme of 2006 which came into force w.e.f.30.08.2006 and not under the old scheme which was operative at the time when the application was submitted since mere submitting application does not confer any vested right upon the petitioner to seek compassionate appointment. At this stage this Court would like to record that since his application seeking compassionate appointment is required to be considered under the scheme of 2006 as noticed by this Court, if any change/amendment has taken place pending writ petition that may also to be taken note of while considering his application for compassionate appointment.
In the light of what has been observed (supra), the writ petition being without substance, is hereby dismissed. However, if an application is now submitted for payment of ex-gratia, by family members of the deceased employee who died in harness under the Scheme, 2006 having been made effective from 30/08/2006 pursuant to Circular dt.09/10/2006, the respondents are directed to consider the same and pass a speaking order in accordance with law expeditiously but in no case later than three months from submission of the application and communicate the decision to the applicant who if feels aggrieved, will be at liberty to avail of remedy under the law.
No costs.
(Ajay Rastogi), J.
K.Khatri/p4/ 9686CW2008Sept14CmpsAptDs.doc