Research › Search › Judgment

Himachal Pradesh High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 154 (HP)

ANCHAL SINGH RANA v. PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK

2007-05-04

RAJIV SHARMA

body2007
JUDGMENT Rajiv Sharma, J.—By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking directions to the respondents to consider his case for compassionate employment. 2. The brief facts necessitated for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner lost his father on 19.12.1998. The Petitioner submitted application seeking employment through his mother in a prescribed Performa. The petitioner supplied all the requisite information as sought for by the respondent-Bank for consideration of his case for compassionate employment as per the Scheme i.e. Annexure-RC dated 20.3.1997. 3. The respondent-Bank has rejected the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on 16.12.2002. The petitioner again reiterated his claim for compassionate appointment which was ultimately rejected on 23.6.2004. 4. Mr. Dushyant Dadwal has strenuously argued that the Annexure-P-10 dated 16.12.2002 as well as Annexure-P17 dated 23.6.2004 are not speaking orders. 5. Mr. Dushyant Dadwal further submitted that even the parameters laid down in Circular No. 6/97, dated 20.3.1997 have been overlooked while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate employment. 6. Mr. Ajay Kumar on behalf of the respondent-Bank has vehemently argued that the compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the petitioner must fulfil the criterion prescribed under the Scheme. 7. I have perused the record and heard the parties. 8. The Annexure P-10 dated 16.12.2002 is not a speaking order. The phraseology employed in Annexure P-10 for rejecting the case of the petitioner is "keeping in view the financial condition and facts of the case, Head Office Africa Avenue had declined your request for providing employment on compassionate grounds". 9. In what manner the financial condition of the petitioners family has been viewed and considered, has not been explained in communication letter dated 16.12.2002. The expression other facts is also not been elaborated. The case of the petitioner was required to be considered as per circular letter No. 6/97 and more particularly in view of para 10 of the Scheme dated 20.3.1997. Similarly, Annexure-P17 does not assign any reasons for rejecting the case of the petitioner except reiterating the earlier communications on the basis of which the case of the petitioner has been rejected. It is evident from the contents of letter dated 23.6.2004 that the case of the petitioner was forwarded to Head Office on 1.10.2003 with recommendations to reconsider the case for employment on compassionate grounds. It is evident from the contents of letter dated 23.6.2004 that the case of the petitioner was forwarded to Head Office on 1.10.2003 with recommendations to reconsider the case for employment on compassionate grounds. Once the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Head Office, it can safely be presumed that it was on the basis of material facts relevant for seeking compassionate appointment. 10. I am of the opinion that once the recommendation has been made by the Head Office at the grass root level, there is no reason why the same should not be made the basis for granting compassionate appointment. 11. Once a Scheme has been framed by the respondent-Bank, which is a state within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India, the same has to be strictly followed. The Scheme has been framed as per Annexure -RC to mitigate the hardship faced by the family who has lost sole bread earner. The case for compassionate appointment is to be dealt with sensitivity taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case. The redressal of the grievances of the dependents who have lost the sole bread earner, cannot be defeated by arithmetical jugglery. 12. The approach of the State, instrumentalities of the State, including the respondent-Bank should be to help the family in a sympathetic manner. The combined reading of the pleadings suggests that the family was always given hope that the case is under active consideration and one of the members of the family will be provided with compassionate appointment but to the contrary the claim has been rejected vide Annexures-P-10 and P-17 in most arbitrary and unreasonable manner. 13. Mr. Ajay Kumar has also argued alternatively that the petitioners case cannot be reconsidered after coming into force of the new Scheme vide Annexure-RD dated 7.1.2005. 14. This Court is of the opinion that the case of the petitioner is to be considered for compassionate appointment as per the old Scheme taking into consideration parameters laid down in the Scheme, i.e. Annexure-RC. 15. The case law cited at the Bar by the respective parties is not attracted in the present case, since both the orders dated 16.12.2002 (Annexure-PIO) and 23.6.2004 (Annexure-P17) are non-speaking orders. 16. The up shot of the above discussion is that Annexures-P-10 and P-17 are liable to be quashed and set aside. 17. 15. The case law cited at the Bar by the respective parties is not attracted in the present case, since both the orders dated 16.12.2002 (Annexure-PIO) and 23.6.2004 (Annexure-P17) are non-speaking orders. 16. The up shot of the above discussion is that Annexures-P-10 and P-17 are liable to be quashed and set aside. 17. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed and Annexures-P-10, P-17 dated 16.12.2002 and 23.6.2004 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to re-consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment within a period of four weeks from the receipt of the certified copy of the judgment of this Court. The exercise of reconsideration is to be undertaken by the respondent-Bank with due application of mind after taking into consideration the entire facts and circumstances of the case. Petition allowed.