Judgment Aftab Alam, J. 1. Heard Sri Sushanta Kumar Das, learned counsel appearing in support of this writ petition and Sri Mihir Kumar Jha appearing for the State Bank of India. 2. The petitioner seeks to challenge an order, dated July 22, 2000, passed by the Branch Manager, Murliganj Branch of the State Bank of India. By that order the bank declined to accept the petitioners claim for appointment on compassionate grounds following the death of his father while in the service of the bank. In the impugned order it is pointed out that on a reasonable calculation the monthly income of the family of the deceased would be Rs. 11,865 per month, the calculation is made on the basis of the accrual of interest on 75 per cent of the terminal dues paid to the deceased employee, apart from his own liquid assets. It is also pointed out that the deceased employee had four sons, three of whom were gainfully employed and the petitioner being the fourth son was sufficiently qualified to fend for himself. A conclusion was, therefore, arrived at that the death of the petitioners father did: not cause such penurious loss to the family as to justify the appointment of the fourth son on compassionate grounds. 3. On going through the impugned order, I find that the grounds assigned for not acceding to the petitioners request for appointment on compassionate ground is quite reasonable and fit to be sustained by this Court. 4. Sri Sushanta Kumar Das, however, assailed the order on the ground that it took into consideration the terminal dues paid to the deceased employee. In support of the submission Sri Das relied upon a decision of this Court in Sanjeev Kumar Sinha V/s. State Bank of India, 2002-I-LLJ-415 (Pat). In this decision a learned single Judge of this Court relying upon a Supreme Court decision in Balbir Kaur and Anr. V/s. Steel Authority of India Ltd., AIR 2000 SC 1596 ; 2000 (6) SCC 493 : 2000-II-LLJ-1, held that the terminal dues paid to the family of the deceased employee could not be taken into reckoning for determining the loss suffered by the family of the deceased. 5. Sri Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the bank submitted that in appeal preferred against the judgment in Sanjeev Kumar Sinha (supra), the operation of the judgment was stayed by the L.P.A. Bench. 5. Sri Mihir Kumar Jha, learned counsel appearing for the bank submitted that in appeal preferred against the judgment in Sanjeev Kumar Sinha (supra), the operation of the judgment was stayed by the L.P.A. Bench. Learned counsel further submitted that in another matter in Kunti Devi V/s. Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Syndicate Bank, 2001 (4) P.LJ.R. 426 , which was placed before a Division Bench, reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner in that case on the decision in Sanjeev Kumar Sinha (supra), but the Division Bench declined to follow that decision and in fact pointed out that the Supreme Court decision in Balbir Kaur relied upon by the learned single Judge in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Sinha was rendered in different circumstances and could not legitimately form the basis of the decision. 6. For the reasons stated above, I am unable to accept the submission made by Sri Sushanta Kumar Das. I find no infirmity in the order and in my view no relief can be allowed to the petitioner. This writ petition is accordingly dismissed but with no order as to costs.