Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 121 (UTT)

GANESH SINGH RAWAT v. UNION OF INDIA

2012-03-22

TARUN AGARWALA

body2012
JUDGMENT Heard Mr. Mangal Singh Chauhan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. D.S. Patni, the learned counsel for the State Bank of India. 2. The petitioner’s father was working in the State Bank of India, Branch Padampur (Sukhrao) Kotdwar, District Pauri Garhwal and died in harness on 9.2.2005. The petitioner being the son of the deceased applied for appointment on compassionate grounds on 25.2.2005. The said application was rejected by the respondents by an order dated 24.9.2005 on the ground that under the new Scheme dated 4.8.2005 no appointment can be made and that the petitioner was only entitled for payment of compensation in lump sum in lieu of compassionate appointment. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has filed the present writ petition. 3. In the counter affidavit the stand of the petitioner is that pursuant to the scheme, which became effective from 4.8.2005, no compassionate appointment has been made in the entire country and that only lump sum payments are being made. 4. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the Court finds from a perusal of para-6 of the supplementary counter affidavit that the respondents admit that three persons were appointed on compassionate grounds after 4.8.2005. The reason indicated is that the competent authority had taken a decision to give appointment to these persons prior to 4.8.2005 but the formality of the issuance of the appointment letter was made after 4.8.2005. However, the petitioner has filed a supplementary affidavit indicating that pursuant to a query obtained under the Right To Information Act, the respondents have further admitted that five more persons were given appointment after 4.8.2005. For this, no response has been given by the respondents as to why they were given the appointments. 5. In the light of the aforesaid, one thing is clear that the respondents are not following their scheme in its entirety. They are making appointments on compassionate grounds instead of paying lump sum compensation. Further, nothing has been stated as to why a decision could not be made on the petitioner’s application filed on 25.2.2005 before the new Scheme dated 4.8.2005 came into existence. Nothing has been indicated as to why the respondents could not take a decision within six months and why the petitioner’s application was allowed to remain pending. Further, nothing has been stated as to why a decision could not be made on the petitioner’s application filed on 25.2.2005 before the new Scheme dated 4.8.2005 came into existence. Nothing has been indicated as to why the respondents could not take a decision within six months and why the petitioner’s application was allowed to remain pending. The Scheme of compassionate appointments was issued with a salutary purpose, namely, to bring immediate relief to the members of the family of the deceased. The purpose is lost when such an application is kept pending for years. The whole idea is that upon the death of the bread earner, instant or immediate relief should be given to the members of the family. 6. There is another aspect of the matter. Admittedly, the petitioner’s father died on 9.2.2005. The petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment on 25.2.2005. At the time of filing the application the existing scheme was to give appointment on compassionate grounds. The petitioner’s application had to be considered and decided as per the scheme relating to appointments on compassionate grounds existing on that date. The scheme, which was existing at the time when the authority had taken the decision, was not to be considered . 7. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order holding that the scheme dated 4.8.2005 would be applicable on the petitioner which does not provide compassionate appointment is patently erroneous and cannot be sustained. 8. In the light of the aforesaid, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is quashed. The writ petition is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the application of the petitioner dated 25.2.2005 for appointment on compassionate grounds as per the existing scheme existing on that date and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of the order. The petitioner is also entitled for cost, which the Court quantifies at Rs. 20,000/-, which shall be paid by the respondents to the petitioner within four weeks from the date of production of certified copy of the order.