Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 98 (HP)

VIKRANT THAKUR v. STATE BANK OF INDIA

2001-05-24

C.K.THAKKER, K.C.SOOD

body2001
JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, CJ.—This petition is filed against an action of State Bank of India, respondent No. 1 herein by which the application of the petitioner for giving appointment on compassionate ground came to be rejected. 2. The case of the petitioner was that he was born on 20th July, 1977. His mother Smt. Susheela Thakur was serving with the Bank. She was working with the Bank at Theog and served for about fifteen years. While in service, she died on 20th September, 1988. It is the case of the petitioner that after death of his mother, his father got remarried in 1989. The petitioner was getting pension of Rs. 875 which was subsequently reduced to Rs. 469. The petitioner made an application to the respondent-Bank for giving an appointment on compassionate ground. The said application, however, was rejected by the respondent-Bank on the ground that it was not made within one year from the death of the mother of the petitioner. The said action is challenged in this writ petition. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that the action of the respondent-Bank is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14,19 and 21 of the Constitution. It was stated that the petitioner attained the age of majority only in 1995. He could not, therefore, make an application within a period of one year, as required by the Rules of the Bank nor within a period of four years. According to him, after attaining the age of majority in 1995, the petitioner made an application, but it was rejected only on limitation, which was illegal. He, therefore, submitted that an appropriate direction may be issued to the respondent-Bank to consider the case of the petitioner on merits. It was also submitted that after the death of petitioners mother, his father has remarried and, orally, it was stated by the learned Counsel at the time of hearing that the father of the petitioner is not maintaining him. If the application is not ordered to be considered sympathetically the petitioner is deprived of father as well as mother and income from them. It was, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. The petition was admitted, pursuant to which the respondents appeared. Affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of the Bank. If the application is not ordered to be considered sympathetically the petitioner is deprived of father as well as mother and income from them. It was, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed. 4. The petition was admitted, pursuant to which the respondents appeared. Affidavit-in-reply was filed on behalf of the Bank. It was stated that in accordance with the Scheme of compassionate appointment, a person is required to make an application within a period of one year from the death of the bread earner of the family. In any case, within a period of four years, such an application was to be made. The attention of the Court was invited to the fact that there is power of relaxation but even that power does not exceed six years. Since the mother of the petitioner died in 1988, latest by 1994, an application could have been made. As the application was made only in November/December, 1996, it was not in consonance with the Scheme of employment on compassionate ground and by rejecting the application, no illegality can be said to have been committed by the Bank. It was also submitted that even according to the petitioner, he attained the age of majority in July, 1995 and within a period of one year thereafter, no application was made and on that ground also, the petitioners application was rightly rejected. It was, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 5. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, in our opinion, it cannot be said that by not considering the application of the petitioner for getting appointment on compassionate ground, any illegality is committed by the respondent-Bank. Our attention was invited by the learned Counsel for the parties to several decisions of the Honble Supreme Court. 6. In Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, (2000) 7 SCC 192, an application was made for getting an appointment on compassionate ground. There was delay in making the application, as the petitioner had not attained the age of majority. After becoming major, he made an application, which was rejected and the said action was challenged. It was the case of the petitioner that his mother, who was working as Excise Constable died in 1988, when the petitioner was of ten years of age. He made an application in 1996, which was rejected as time barred. After becoming major, he made an application, which was rejected and the said action was challenged. It was the case of the petitioner that his mother, who was working as Excise Constable died in 1988, when the petitioner was of ten years of age. He made an application in 1996, which was rejected as time barred. Another application also met with the same fate and the action was challenged on the ground that it was illegal and contrary to law. Rejecting the contention and approving the action of the State Authorities, the Supreme Court held that compassionate appointment is intended to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread-earner who had left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. It was observed that if the contention of the petitioner is upheld, there would be reservation of a vacancy till such time, as such person becomes major after a number of years and such a claim cannot be upheld by the Court. Accordingly, the petition was dismissed. 7. In Director of Education (Secondary) and another v. Pushpendra Kumar and others, (1998) 5 SCC 192, a similar question arose before the Supreme Court. Holding that there is no right in favour of such person, the Court observed that the underlying object for the grant of compassionate employment is to save the family of deceased employee resulting due to death of the earning member. Out of pure humanitarian consideration and having regard to the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made for giving gainful appointment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such appointment. It was indicated that such a scheme makes a departure from the general law. It is in the nature of exception to the general provisions. A care has, therefore, to be taken that grant of compassionate employment should not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment on compassionate grounds of the dependant of a deceased employee. 8. A care has, therefore, to be taken that grant of compassionate employment should not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment on compassionate grounds of the dependant of a deceased employee. 8. In Life Insurance Corporation of India v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and another, (1994) 2 SCC 718, the Court noted that it is true that there may be pitiable situations but on that score, the statutory provisions cannot be put aside. The Court also observed that on compassionate ground judicial authorities have directed to make appointment and hence, it was necessary for the Apex Court to lay down law in that regard. Then referring to the well known play of William Shakespeare (Merchant of Venice), the Court observed that though justice should be tampered with mercy, the words would not apply to all situations. Yielding to instinct will tend to ignore the old logic of law. It should be remembered that "law is the embodiment of all wisdom". Justice according to law as they find it, however, inconvenient it may be. 9. In Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar and another, (1996) 1 SCC 301, almost an identical question was raised before the apex Court. These also an employee died and at that time his son was minor (four years of age). After attaining majority, he made an application, which was rejected and the said action was confirmed by the Supreme Court. 10. Likewise, in State of U.P. and others v. Paras Nath, (1998) 2 SCC 412, there was long delay in applying for compassionate appointment on the ground that when the deceased died, he left a son of being two years of age. The Rules, which came into force subsequently provided compassionate appointment and for the first time, an application was made after a period of about seventeen years of the death of the employee. It was rejected and the petition filed by the petitioner came to be allowed by the High Court. The State approached the Supreme Court. The Rules, which came into force subsequently provided compassionate appointment and for the first time, an application was made after a period of about seventeen years of the death of the employee. It was rejected and the petition filed by the petitioner came to be allowed by the High Court. The State approached the Supreme Court. Setting aside the order passed by the High Court and allowing the petition, the Court noted that the purpose of providing employment to a dependant of a Government servant dying in harness in preference to anybody else, is to mitigate the hardship caused to the family of the employee on account of his unexpected death while still in service and if such a situation would not be there, no application could be considered. 11. No doubt, Mr. Dogra, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in the instant case, the action of the respondent-Bank must be held to be arbitrary and unreasonable. Argument of the learned Counsel is that once a Scheme is framed by the Bank providing compassionate appointment, the said Scheme must be made workable and functional. It is not disputed even by the respondent-Bank, submitted Mr. Dogra, that the petitioner could not have made an application when his mother died. He could not have made an application even within a period of six years, which is the maximum period of relaxation, as he had not attained the age of majority by that time. He became major in 1995. According to the counsel, therefore, to extend the benefit of granting compassionate appointment under the Scheme, the Scheme must be construed reasonably and the period provided under the Scheme must be counted from the day, a person attains the age of majority. If the contention of the respondent-Bank is upheld, the policy will become arbitrary. 12. We are unable to uphold the submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. So far as legal position is concerned, from the above cases, it is amply clear that even in the cases where a person is minor unable to apply, the Supreme Court has held considering the underlying object of giving appointment on compassionate ground, that the family does not suffer due to the death of bread-earner and the family survives. If the family has survived in spite of death of such member, there is no dire need to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment. If the family has survived in spite of death of such member, there is no dire need to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment. Such a provision, in the light of the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, cannot be held arbitrary or unreasonable. As in the instant case, the application was made after more than six years, it cannot be said that by rejecting the application, illegality has been committed. 13. For the foregoing reasons, in our opinion, the petition deserves to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.