Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 1327 (RAJ)

Vikram Singh Chauhan v. Marwar Gramin Bank

2004-09-14

SUNIL KUMAR GARG

body2004
Honble GARG, J.–The petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 5.3.2003 against the respondent with a prayer that the respondent be directed to consider the case of the petitioner to give appointment to him on compassionate ground on the post of clerk or any other post. (2). The facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: i) That father of the petitioner late Shri Balwant Singh died on 25.9.1998 and at the time of death, deceased was in service of respondent - Bank and he was regular employee of the bank since 1979 and when he died, he was working on the post of Branch Manager at Marwar Gramin Bank, Harji Branch. ii) It was further submitted by the petitioner that he is graduate and is fully qualified for appointment in the respondent - Bank on compassionate ground. iii) Further case of the petitioner is that after death of his father, he submitted an application dtd. 5.10.1998 (Annex.1) for seeking appointment on compassionate ground and his mother Smt. Geeta Chauhan through application dtd. 5.10.1998 (Annex.2) recommended the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. iv) Further case of the petitioner is that after receiving application (Annex.1 and 2), through letter dtd. 8.12.1998 (Annex.3), the respondent - Bank sought some informations from the mother of the petitioner which were supplied by his mother through letter dtd. 15.12.1998 (Annex.4). The mother of the petitioner gave information that at the time of death of her husband, the petitioner was her only son and there were two daughters, but she herself was working as Teacher at Sirohi in the pay scale of Rs. 5300/- etc. Apart from that, information about the property and liability was also supplied. v) On receiving the letter dtd. 15.12.1998 (Annex.4), the respondent - Bank through letter dtd. 10.7.99 (Annex.5) addressed to the mother of the petitioner, refused to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground stating that since she was in Government service and looking to the liability as furnished by her, it was not possible for the respondent to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. vi) Further case of the petitioner is that thereafter through letter dtd. vi) Further case of the petitioner is that thereafter through letter dtd. 2.8.99 (Annex.6), the mother of the petitioner made further request for giving appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground, but the respondent - Bank vide letter dtd. 17.8.99 (Annex.7) replied to the mother of the petitioner that it was not possible to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer. (3). Reply was filed by the respondent - Bank and it has been submitted that payment in respect of gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund etc. have been made and apart from that family pension had also been sanctioned to the widow Smt. Geeta Chauhan. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that Rules of the Bank did not permit in the facts and circumstances of the case to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner especially when mother of the petitioner (widow of the deceased) was already in Government servant getting regular monthly pay of Rs. 5300/- and hence no case was made out and the writ petition be dismissed. (4). Heard (5). There is no dispute on the point that after death of father of the petitioner, the petitioner through application dtd. 5.10.98 (Annex.1) sought appointment on compassionate ground in the respondent - bank and his mother also supported the case of the petitioner through application dtd. 5.10.1998 (Annex.2). (6). There is also no dispute on the point that mother of the petitioner was already in service as teacher. (7). For convenience, Point No. X of Scheme for Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Employees on Compassionate Grounds in Regional Rural Bank is quoted hereunder: x) In case a widow, son or daughter is already in employment whether in the Bank or elsewhere, the Bank may, at its discretion, consider giving employment to another son or daughter after taking into account the individual circumstances of each case i.e. the income of the member of the family already employed, the size of the family, the assets and liabilities of the family and other relevant considerations. (8). Now the question which arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case just mentioned above, appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground was rightly refused by the respondent - Bank or not? (9). (8). Now the question which arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case just mentioned above, appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground was rightly refused by the respondent - Bank or not? (9). Before proceeding further, legal aspect with respect to for what purpose compassionate appointments are made and what is the object behind them may be seen. For that, the decisions of the Honble Supreme Court in Sushma Gosain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1), Smt. Phoolwati vs. Union of India & Ors. (2), Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (3), Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar (4), State of Bihar vs. Samsuz Zoha (5), Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation vs. Dinesh Kumar (6), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vs. A. Radhiki Thirumalai (7), Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Naresh Tanwar & Anr. (8), Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. vs. Hakim Singh (9), Director of Education (Secondary) & Anr. vs. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. (10), Cochin Cock Labour Board vs. Leemama Samuel & Ors. (11), U.P.R.T.C. vs. Pukhraj Singh & Ors. (12), and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. P. Pochaiah & Anr. (13), may be referred to. (10). The salient features of the above authorities may be summarised in the following manner: 1. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread- earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. 2. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased. 3. The favourable treatment given to such dependant of the deceased employee in such posts has a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved, viz. Relief against destitution. 4. The decision does not justify compassionate appointment either as a matter of course. 5. The only ground which can justify compassionate appointment is the penurious condition of the deceaseds family. 6. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right. Relief against destitution. 4. The decision does not justify compassionate appointment either as a matter of course. 5. The only ground which can justify compassionate appointment is the penurious condition of the deceaseds family. 6. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crises. 7. A provision for grant of compassionate employment, which is in the nature of an exception to the general provision, does not unduly interfere with the right of other persons who are eligible for appointment to seek employment against the post which would have been available to them, but for the provision enabling appointment being made on compassionate grounds for the dependant of a deceased employee. 8. An employment on compassionate ground should be provided strictly in accordance with the Rules and the Court cannot take a view as to make it violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 9. The Court should not stretch the provision by liberal interpretation beyond permissible limits on humanitarian grounds. (11). Apart from that what the word ``compassionate appointment means; has to be seen: ``Compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule that appointment to public service should be no merits and through open invitation. In such cases, the appointment is given to a member of the family of the deceased employee by accommodating him in a suitable vacancy. (12). Keeping the above principles in mind, the case of the present petitioner has to be examined. (13). Since appointment on compassionate ground is not vested right, therefore, judicial interference in such cases by the Court should be limited and since it is a discretionary relief and therefore, if the discretion has been rightly exercised, it should not be interfered with lightly and for that law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Joginder Sharma (14), may be referred to. (14). Apart from this, since compassionate appointment is a discretionary relief and as per point No. 10 of the Scheme, if the widow, son or daughter is already in service, the Bank may refuse to give compassionate appointment taking into account the individual circumstances of each case. (15). (14). Apart from this, since compassionate appointment is a discretionary relief and as per point No. 10 of the Scheme, if the widow, son or daughter is already in service, the Bank may refuse to give compassionate appointment taking into account the individual circumstances of each case. (15). In the present case, the mother of the petitioner was already in Government service as Teacher and therefore, in such circumstances, if discretion has been exercised not to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground, it cannot be said that any legal right of the petitioner has been infringed and further more, since it was discretionary relief and looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case, it cannot be said that the discretion which was exercised by the respondent - Bank not to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner, was exercised arbitrarily and capriciously. (16). The Honble Supreme Court in the case of Sail & Anr. vs. Awadhesh Singh & Ors. (15), has held that where dependent is already in service, compassionate appointment should not be provided to other heir. From that point of view also, the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for. (17). The learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of Balbir Kaur & Anr. vs. Steel Authority of India Limited (16). In my considered opinion, this authority would not be helpful to the learned counsel for the petitioner as in that case the Honble Supreme Court has held that Family Benefit Scheme assuring monthly payment to family of the deceased employee should not be considered as substitute for compassionate appointment. However, in the present case, the main basis for denying compassionate appointment to the petitioner was that her mother was in Government service and therefore, it cannot be said that merely because mother of the petitioner was getting family pension, compassionate appointment had been refused. Similarly law laid down in the case of Canara Bank vs. Priya Janarajan (17), would not be helpful to the learned counsel for the petitioner as it relates to the terminal benefits given to the widow of the deceased and the ground of refusal of compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the present case was different one. (18). Similarly law laid down in the case of Canara Bank vs. Priya Janarajan (17), would not be helpful to the learned counsel for the petitioner as it relates to the terminal benefits given to the widow of the deceased and the ground of refusal of compassionate appointment to the petitioner in the present case was different one. (18). For the reasons mentioned above, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in this writ petition and the present writ petition does not call for any interference by this Court and hence, the same deserves to be dismissed. Accordingly, the present writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.