Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 824 (ALL)

RAHUL TANDON v. REGIONAL MANAGER, ALLAHABAD BANK

2003-04-16

S.N.SRIVASTAVA

body2003
S. N. SRIVASTAVA, J. ( 1 ) PETITIONER in the instant petition is the son of deceased employee of Allahabad Bank and at the time of his death, the deceased Ramesh narain Tandon was serving in the said Bank on the post of Manager at Katra Branch, allahabad. ( 2 ) THE factual matrix of the case draped in brevity is that late Sri R. N. Tandon suffered affliction due to cancer and the disease prolonged to a span of five years and ultimately he succumbed to the dreaded disease on 12/09/1998. During the course of his affliction, the deceased underwent treatment at various places including Tata Memorial hospital, Mumbai and was administered chemotherapy treatment on six occasions in succession. It would further appear from the record that the deceased was advanced loan of rs. 3 lacs by the Bank to meet expenses being incurred on his treatment. It is also eloquent from the record that the matter for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was represented to the respondent No. 3 initially on 3/01/2000 followed by letters dated 1/12/2001 and May 6, 2002 (Annexures to the petition) and in the ultimate analysis, the Bank declined compassionate appointment to the petitioner by means of order contained in the letter dated May 22, 2002. ( 3 ) 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and traversed upon aspects bearing on the issue involved in this petition. I have also been taken through the scheme formulated and applicable in relation to compassionate appointment. ( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner drew my attention to the fact that a meagre sum of rs. 3096/- has been fixed as monthly pension and terminal dues of provident fund and gratuity etc. received by deceased family aggregates to Rs. 5,18,704. 31 p. He also drew attention of the Court to the fact that the deceased suffered from prolonged affliction which had a span of about 5 years during which period expenses incurred on treatment approximated not less than Rs. 7 lacs and in the ultimate analysis, the family was left with very meagre amount to sustain themselves. He further submitted that the deceased at the time of his death was drawing a lumpsum salary to the extent of Rs. 7 lacs and in the ultimate analysis, the family was left with very meagre amount to sustain themselves. He further submitted that the deceased at the time of his death was drawing a lumpsum salary to the extent of Rs. 20,000/- and after the death, of the deceased, the family is constrained to maintain a very precarious existence on a meagre sum of Rs. 3096/ -. It is further submitted that one daughter still remains to be married and the only son who is petitioner in the instant petition, is sitting, idle after completing his education. This is the portrayal of circumstances sketched by the learned counsel which point to the fact that the family of the deceased is somehow managing to maintain a precarious existence on the meagre amount being received as pension to the exclusion of other amounts received as terminal benefits which are stated to have been exhausted in defraying loans taken from private sources. ( 5 ) FROM a perusal of the impugned order it would transpire that the total income received from monthly family pension and notional interest received from the investment of terminal benefits after adjustment of Banks loans/dues ostensibly furnished foundation for conclusions as to the sufficiency of means for maintenance of a family of three members. It is thus borne out that pension and income from investment of terminal benefits have been taken into reckoning to form opinion to decline compassionate appointment to the petitioner. It brooks no dispute that the whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The question that looms large for consideration is whether mere receiving certain amount from employer after death of the sole bread earner and some other lumpsum amount paid to the family would suffice without there being any subsisting permanent source of income to keep the pot boiling in the face of the fact that none amongst the surviving members of the family is earning anything from any employment. In the instant case the authorities after enumerating details of source of income sans consideration of huge expenses incurred on the treatment of the deceased and without having regard to the fact that a hefty amount of whatever was received by the family as terminal benefits was spent in defraying loans taken from private sources. In the instant case the authorities after enumerating details of source of income sans consideration of huge expenses incurred on the treatment of the deceased and without having regard to the fact that a hefty amount of whatever was received by the family as terminal benefits was spent in defraying loans taken from private sources. I would not scruple to say that brevity has been preferred to detailed discussion and it is not apparent from the impugned order as to what were the considerations weighing with the authority concerned to converge to the conclusion to decline appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. The order impugned herein from its bare perusal could well be interpreted to signify that it was based on subjective satisfaction and does not satisfy the requirements of law nor does it indicate any indicia of application of mind. ( 6 ) WHILE considering the case of compassionate appointment, competent authority is to address itself to the aspect of livelihood and a duty is enjoined on him to consider whether applicant has sufficient means of livelihood to pull on the family with human dignity. The aspect as to the right to life and to live with human dignity after the death of the sole bread earner, to all appearances, was the consideration, which evoked benefactory observation of the Apex Court in Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others AIR 2000 SC 1596 : 2000 (6) SCC 493 : 2000-II-LLJ-1. In this case, the Apex Court being at its solicitous best observed that the feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the bread earner and insecurity thereafter reigns and at that juncture if some lumpsum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief stricken family may find solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. In the ultimate analysis, it was quipped that it was not that monetary benefit would be replacement of the bread earner but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation. In the ultimate analysis, it was quipped that it was not that monetary benefit would be replacement of the bread earner but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation. The distillate of the above decision would appear to be that the lumpsum amount alone received by the family of the deceased could not be a substitute for employment to be offered to any eligible member of the family of the deceased in order to keep the pot of family boiling after the death of the sole bread earner. It thus follows that right to livelihood and consequently the right to live with human dignity have to be reckoned into consideration while delving into tenability of the claim by surviving member of deceased family for compassionate appointment. As stated supra, in the instant case, the Bank authority concerned passed the cryptic order and does not appear to have addressed himself to the most pivotal facet whether the paltry amount of Rs. 3096/- being received as pension by the surviving family would sustain itself to live with human dignity qua the liabilities/responsibilities left behind by the deceased. Besides, it would also appear from the record that no opportunity was afforded to the family of deceased in order to bring home the point that the amount received as terminal benefits and pension pegged at Rs. 3096/- would not suffice to sustain the family and the decision so arrived by the concerned bank authority was one stemming from subjective satisfaction. I am constrained to observe that the authorities did not see the wood for trees and therefore, the decision cannot be sustained in law. ( 7 ) IN the above conspectus and having regard to the fact that the impugned order contains no reasons nor any indicia indicative of the fact that it reckoned with circumstance that were fraught with consequences detrimental to the family of the deceased if left to fend for itself on the meagre income from pension etc. I feel called to quash the impugned order. I feel called to quash the impugned order. Before parting I feel called to observe that mere consideration of aggregate amount payable to the deceased family without corresponding consideration of the liabilities to be incurred in the wake of the death of the deceased particularly when the deceased had suffered prolonged illness spanning over above 5 years and when there was no earning member in the family to supplement the amount received as pension does not satisfy the object and intendment of the scheme and in the circumstances I am constrained to observe that the Bank authorities while dealing with compassionate appointments seem to be more parsimonious qua the emerging facts than considering the circumstances liberally in the spirit and intendment of the scheme. ( 8 ) IN the result the petition is allowed and the impugned order contained in letter dated May 22, 2002 is quashed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that the petitioner shall represent the matter to the competent authority within one-month along with a certified copy of this order and in case any such representation is made, the authority concerned shall consider and decide the same by a speaking order within a period of two months and shall communicate the decision so taken expeditiously within next 15 days. .