Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2010 DIGILAW 2353 (PAT)

Kumar Gaurab v. State Bank Of India

2010-10-26

V.N.SINHA

body2010
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State Bank of lndia(hereinafter referred to as the Bank). 2. Petitioners in the two writ application(s) are the wards of the employees of the Bank who died in harness. After the death of the bread winner petitioners requested the authorities of the Bank to consider their case for appointment on compassionate ground, which has been rejected under orders dated 13.12.2001 passed in the case of petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.11589 of 2003 and has been impugned as Annexure-4 in the said writ case. In the case of petitioner no.1 of C.W.J.C. No.11990 of 2003 rejection order is dated 3.7.2003 and has been impugned as Annexure-1 in the said writ case. Perusal of order dated 13.12.2001 indicates that thereunder the competent authority of the Bank having considered the liquid surplus available to the family including family pension, income from assumed interest on investments concluded that financial condition of the family is such that it is able to sustain itself and in the light of the said finding rejected the request of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Under order dated 3.7.2003 impugned in the connected writ case, request of Ratanmala Devi for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected observing that the aspects highlighted by her under representation dated 14.2.2003 has already been considered and not found acceptable for granting compassionate appointment. 3. Mother of petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.11589 of 2003 requested the competent authority of the Bank to reconsider the order dated 13.12.2001 on the ground that her family being a large one consisting of 5- 6 members require at least 13,820/- per month to meet the expenses incurred towards the bare necessities of life and the income from family pension and other sources is not enough to sustain the family. Her request to reconsider the order dated 13.12.2001 was not considered by the competent authority of the Bank, whereafter the present writ petition was filed challenging the same on the ground that the income from the family pension and other sources is not enough to sustain the family and petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.11589 of 2003, the son of the bread winner be given appointment on compassionate ground so as to enable him to sustain the family. In support of the aforesaid contention learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Sinha Vs. State Bank of India and others and Ajay Kumar V/s. Canara Bank and others, reported in 2001(2) PLJR 219 and relying on the said judgment submitted that order dated 13.12.2001 be set aside with direction to the authorities of the Bank to reconsider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. 4. Under orders dated 15.12.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No.11589 of 2003 this Court observed that an identical issue which is raised in the writ case has been referred to the Division Bench for authoritative pronouncement and the other writ petition(s) have been directed to be heard along with . L.P.A. No.356 of 2001. Having made the aforesaid observation, this Court under orders dated 15.12.2003 further directed that the writ petition be considered after disposal of L.P.A. No.356 of 2001. Under orders dated 17.12.2003 passed in C.W.J.C. No.11990 of 2003 this Court directed that the said writ case be listed for consideration along with C.W.J.C. No.11589 of 2003. L.P.A. No.356 of 2001 has been dismissed under orders dated 14.7.2008, reported in 2008(4) PLJR 253, whereafter the matters have been placed for consideration. Perusal of the order passed in LPA would indicate that the Division Bench did not interfere with the order passed in the case of Sanjeev Kumar Sinha and another (supra) directing consideration for cornpassionate appointment in terms of the scheme, as it found that the Bank had chosen not to consider the case of the wards of the deceased employee on the ground that the service record of the deceased employee was not unblemished. 5. Counsel for the Bank has opposed the prayer by filing counter affidavit in both the writ petitions. He states that the case of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground was considered in the light of the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground formulated as per the guidelines received from the Government of India based on the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal, reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 , Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. Having considered the case of petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.11589 of 2003 it was found that the family of late Shambhu Sharan Thakur has liquid surplus of 6.42 lacs, total monthly income of 9,884/- including income from monthly pension of 6,273 which is more than the take home salary of Sri Thakur i.e. 5,398.59/- and with reference to such calculation it was submitted that the financial condition of the family cannot be termed as penurious.- 6. By filing counter affidavit in C.W.J.C. No.11990 of 2003 similar stand was taken by the authorities of the Bank and it was stated that family of late Sadanand Singh, the husband of petitioner no.1 in C.W.J.C. No.11990 of 2003 has liquid surplus of 3.67 lacs and total monthly income of 7,090/- including family pension of 5,026/-, which is more than the take home salary of Sri Sadanand Singh i.e. 6,161/-. Learned counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.11990 of 2003 submitted that calculation chart, Annexure-B appended with the counter affidavit does not indicate the correct position as while calculating the liquid surplus of 3.67 lacs the authorities of the Bank have not taken into account 0.50 lacs, which is the borrowing of the family from the outsiders. Had such borrowing being taken into account the finding that the family of late Sadanand Singh had liquid surplus of 3.67 lacs could not have been arrived at and on account of such mistake in calculation the matter is required to be reconsidered. 7. Counsel for the Bank in rejoinder submitted that the borrowing from the outsiders is not through any instrument, borrowing bereft of instrument is not to be taken into account by the Bank as per its policy to calculate the liquid surplus available at the disposal of the family. 8. Having heard counsel for the parties and having perused the impugned orders as also the calculation chart placed on record by the authorities of the Bank as Annexure- B to the counter affidavit in both the writ petitions, it is evident that the take home salary of the deceased bread winner in the two. writ petitions was less than the total income of the family from all sources including family pension, income from assumed interest on investment, as such, there is no difficulty in concluding that the family of the petitioners in the two writ petitions are not suffering penurious condition. writ petitions was less than the total income of the family from all sources including family pension, income from assumed interest on investment, as such, there is no difficulty in concluding that the family of the petitioners in the two writ petitions are not suffering penurious condition. In the circumstances, the impugned decision by which the Bank refused the request of the petitioners for appointment on compassionate ground does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and the two writ petitions are, accordingly, dismissed, however with liberty to the petitioners in both the writ petitions to approach the competent authority of the Bank, if they wish to challenge the figures of the calculation chart, Annexure-B on the basis of which monthly income of the family has been calculated. Application filed by the petitioners in compliance of this order be considered and disposed of by the competent authority of the Bank, as early as possible, in any case within one month from the date of receipt of the application of the petitioners along with a copy of this order.