Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 738 (RAJ)

Manish Kumar Babal v. UCO Bank

2014-03-20

VEERENDR SINGH SIRADHANA

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. - The subject matter of the instant writ application is the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds. 2. Briefly, the indispensable material facts necessary for adjudication of the controversy are: that Late Shri Keshar Dev, father of the petitioner, died on 27th July, 1999, while in service on the post of Head Cashier at UCO Bank, Branch Khodi Kalam. Smt. Parmeshwari Devi, wife of Late Shri Keshar Dev, requested for an appointment on compassionate grounds in favour of her son, the petitioner, who was minor at the relevant time, by an application dated 10th July, 2000. The respondent/UCO Bank responded the application vide communication dated 28th October, 2000, referring to the provisions of the Scheme for compassionate appointment, informing that the competent authority has decided for payment of a lump-sum amount of Rs. 1.5 lakh, in lieu of appointment. The petitioner's mother was advised to receive the payment, after adjustment of all liabilities of the deceased employee to the respondent-Bank, from Khuri Kalan Branch of the Bank. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a writ to the respondent-Bank to accord appointment in favour of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the pleaded facts of the writ application has strenuously argued that the action of the respondent-Bank, in not according appointment to the petitioner no compassionate grounds, is illegal, arbitrary and unsustainable in the eye of law. The learned counsel would further submit that denial of the claim for appointment on compassionate grounds, by the respondent-Bank, on the pretext of policy decision, where the family was likely to receive more than 60% of the gross salary, the dependent of such an employee, who died in harness, would not be entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds; is an illegal and arbitrary decision, and therefore, violative of Article 14 to 21 oi the Constitution of the family, is below 60% of the gross income of the deceased employee, last drawn. 4. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondent/UCO Bank, has filed its counter affidavit, repelling the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. It is further pleaded that an amount of Rs. 4. In response to the notice of the writ application, the respondent/UCO Bank, has filed its counter affidavit, repelling the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. It is further pleaded that an amount of Rs. 2,44,687.07 (Rupees : Two Lakh Forty Four Thousand Six Hundred Eighty Seven and Seven Paisa Only) was paid to the family of the petitioner on account of Provident Fund, Gratuity Fund, Leave Encashment, LIC, NSC etc. An amount of Rs. 17,874/- (Rupees Seventeen (sic.) Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Four Only), was also paid as additional gratuity to the widow of the deceased vide cheque bearing number 9112267 dated 14th October, 2004. It is further stated that the total monthly income, that the family was likely to receive, on account of net surplus, family pension, notional income, totalled to monthly income of Rs. 7,548.94 (Rupees : Seven Thousand Five Hundred Forty Eight & Ninety Four Paisa), which is more than 60% of the last pay drawn by the deceased employee i.e. Rs. 10,793/-(Rupees : Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Ninety Three Only). Thus, when the family would be in the receipt of a monthly income of more than 60% of the last pay drawn by the deceased employee; the petitioner was not entitled for appointment on compassionate grounds. Furthermore, the appointment on compassionate grounds being a concession in the exceptional case, where the employee died in harness. The intended object of such an appointment is to tide over the family of the financial crisis, and cannot be claimed as a matter of right, at any time in future. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and with their assistance, perused the materials available on record. 6. From the materials available on record, it is evident that the competent authority examined the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, taking into consideration the totality of the facts, which included, the assets of the family of the deceased, income which the family was likely to receive and the financial condition. Moreover, the petitioner was a minor in the year 1999, when his father died in harness. The prayer for appointment on compassionate grounds was declined by the competent authority. A lump-sum amount of Rs. Moreover, the petitioner was a minor in the year 1999, when his father died in harness. The prayer for appointment on compassionate grounds was declined by the competent authority. A lump-sum amount of Rs. 1.5 lakh (Rupees : One Lakh & Fifty Thousand Only) in lieu of the appointment on compassionate grounds, was offered, as per the terms and conditions of the Scheme of the respondent-Bank. The fact that the family of the deceased was likely to receive an income of more than 60% of the last pay drawn by the deceased employee, has not been denied specifically by any documentary evidence. 7. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not assailed the legality, validity and correctness of the Scheme of the respondent-Bank, with reference to appointment on compassionate ground; wherein the claim for compassionate appointment could be declined, if the family of the deceased employee was likely to receive more than 60% amount of the last pay drawn by the deceased employee. Further, the fact that the family has already received the lump-sum amount of Rs. 1.5 lakh, in lieu of compassionate appointment, is also not under the challenge. 8. Some what identical controversy fell for consideration before this Court in the case of Tej Pal v. The General Manager (Personnel), UCO Bank & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 953 of 2003), decided on 30th January, 2014 . While dealing with the object underlying for grant of an appointment on compassionate grounds, referring to the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Nagpal v. State of Haryana & Ors. : 1994 (4) SCC 138 , it was held that as a rule, appointment in public services are governed by the statutory rules. The appointment on 1 compassionate grounds, is an exception, in view of sudden- demise of the bread winner of the family, to bear the jerk suffered by the family on account of sudden loss of financial support. Moreover, in the instant case at hand, the family was not in financial crisis and the respondent- Bank offered a lump sum amount of Rs. 1.5 lakh, in lieu of the appointment on 1 compassionate grounds, as per the terms and conditions of the Scheme of the respondent-Bank, framed to meet out such situations. Moreover, in the instant case at hand, the family was not in financial crisis and the respondent- Bank offered a lump sum amount of Rs. 1.5 lakh, in lieu of the appointment on 1 compassionate grounds, as per the terms and conditions of the Scheme of the respondent-Bank, framed to meet out such situations. Thus, in the facts of this case, there is room for any doubt, that the matter has been dealt with in the right perspective, keeping in view of the object underlying the appointment on compassionate ground. : 9. In the case of Tej pal (supra), this Court referring to the opinion of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, dealing with the appointment on compassionate ground, held thus:- "9. The claim of the petitioner was declined in view of monthly income of the family being higher than 60% of the gross salary of the deceased employee and this issue has also been scrutinised by a Coordinate Bench in the case of Devi Kishan Harijan Versus UCO Bank & ors. : RLW 2009 (1) (Raj.) 199 and without commenting upon the Scheme framed by the respondent Bank, the matter was remanded to the respondent Bank for reconsideration, observing that a straight-jacket-formula should not be adopted while considering the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds, keeping in view the welfare aspect of the Scheme. 10. In the case of Smt. Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra & Ors. : AIR 2008 SC (Supp.) 305 , the Hon'ble Appex Court of the land dealt with the issue of appointment on compassionate ground in view of the lapse of time and the dependent having acquired the age of majority. Their Lordships referring to earlier opinion in the case of I.G. (Karmik) & Ors. v. Prahalad Mani Tripathi : (2007) 6 SCC 162 , observed that it is a settled principle of law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment. The sole reason underlying such an appointment is the benevolent Scheme by the State or the Public Sector Undertaking, is to see that the dependents of the deceased are not deprived of the means of livelihood." 10. Father of the petitioner died on 27th July, 1999, while in employment of the respondent Bank and a period of more than 14 years has elapsed since then. Father of the petitioner died on 27th July, 1999, while in employment of the respondent Bank and a period of more than 14 years has elapsed since then. The petitioner has also attained the age of majority, and from the materials available on record, it cannot be said that the family was/is in financial destitution; therefore, in my opinion, the claim for appointment on compassionate ground in the facts and circumstances of the instant case at hand, cannot be sustained at this stage. Thus, keeping in view the overall facts and materials available on record of the present case, the claim of the petitioner, for appointment on compassionate grounds, is not tenable. 11. For the reasons and discussions herein above, the writ petition is devoid of any substance and deserves to be dismissed. 12. Ordered accordingly. 13. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. *******