Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 1784 (ALL)

Adams Paul v. State Bank of India

2015-07-07

ANANT KUMAR, SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN

body2015
JUDGMENT Heard learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This appeal has been filed against judgment and order dated 04.08.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 3543 (SS) of 1996 whereby the claim raised by the appellants in respect of compassionate appointment as contemplated under the scheme dated 21st October 1982 floated by the opposite party which was a modified scheme in pursuance to the earlier scheme of compassionate appointment which was introduced in the department. The appellants have come forward to challenge the aforesaid order by way of this appeal. 3. The facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellant no. 2 who appears to be the son of a bank employee, appellant no. 1, claimed the benefit of compassionate appointment as contemplated under the scheme dated 21st October 1982. The appellant no. 1 moved an application in the above scheme for pre-mature retirement as well as seeking appointment of appellant no. 2. The father of the appellant no. 2 was directed to appear before the Medical Board. The Medical Board found him medically unfit to continue in employment, so it submitted a report to that effect. Such report was taken into consideration by the Bank and thereafter the bank authority proceeded to allow the premature retirement of appellant no. 1 on medical ground. The application was moved by the appellant no. 1 with the request to allow the appointment of his son on compassionate ground under the contemplated scheme. The application of appellant no. 1 was processed and allowed by the bank authority permitting him to take premature retirement. The claim of the son of the appellant no. 1 was to be considered but the bank authority instead of giving appointment to appellant no. 2 asked regarding financial status etc. of appellant no.2 and ultimately when they found that the mother of appellant no. 2 was in employment they refused to proceed for giving appointment to appellant no. 2. Apart from it, they also considered the financial status of the appellant no. 2. The writ petition was filed challenging the aforesaid refusal of appointment by both the appellants before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, after appreciating the controversy inter-alia in the writ petition on the ground that the appellant no. 2. Apart from it, they also considered the financial status of the appellant no. 2. The writ petition was filed challenging the aforesaid refusal of appointment by both the appellants before the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge, after appreciating the controversy inter-alia in the writ petition on the ground that the appellant no. 2 has become over age during pendency of the writ petition and secondly, the mother of the appellant no. 2 was in employment and therefore, the financial condition of the appellant no. 2 was good enough, dismissed the writ petition. 4. The submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge has failed to appreciate the purpose and object of the scheme and has also submitted that the modified scheme never contemplated that appointment can be denied on financial condition. The learned counsel for the appellants submits that the scheme itself contemplates that if wife or the son is in employment then excluding that person the employment can be given to the next person. He further submits that modified scheme dated 21.10.1982 does not contemplate any such right that financial condition of a particular candidate has to be considered and denied under these circumstances. Learned counsel submits that under the prevailing scheme terminal benefits are available to each and every employee who seeks the premature retirement under the scheme with the understanding that son will be given compassionate appointment. So far as the financial condition is concerned, learned counsel has specifically stated the names of various persons in the rejoinder affidavit and he has also indicated the financial condition of the some of the candidates who have been given employment under the scheme on compassionate basis and he has further submitted that such appointments have been given to them after taking into consideration the sound financial condition of the employees. In respect of one employee, namely, Ajay Sehgal, mentioned in supplementary affidavit, it has been stated that his father was drawing Rs. 8,000/- monthly pension and the retiral benefits were received by his father, in spite of that he has been given appointment. Submission of learned counsel is that if scheme contemplates giving the compassionate appointment, even though when the wife and other son were in employment, then the compassionate appointment could not have been refused on the ground that the mother of the appellant no. 2 was in employment. Submission of learned counsel is that if scheme contemplates giving the compassionate appointment, even though when the wife and other son were in employment, then the compassionate appointment could not have been refused on the ground that the mother of the appellant no. 2 was in employment. 5. Refuting the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, the learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the scheme is an extension of earlier scheme and earlier scheme contemplates that appointment would be considered in the light of existing circumstances as well as financial status and the modified scheme has to be read in continuation of the earlier scheme and if both the schemes are read together then it has to be inferred that the bank can deny under the settled law to give appointment to the appellant no. 2 on the ground that the financial condition of appellant no. 2 was sound enough. 6. Appreciating the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents, we have to consider the main question as to whether the financial condition is a ground to deny the compassionate appointment. The earlier general scheme of compassionate appointment and the new scheme dated 21st October 1982 providing the compassionate appointment to all employees, who have been given premature retirement on the ground of illness, are not to be read in continuation and they are to be read separately so far as the giving of appointment on compassionate ground on ill health is concerned. 7. The general scheme of compassionate appointment stands on different footing and the said scheme contemplates giving of compassionate appointment according to the policy of the bank on various condition including financial condition. The modified scheme was floated on 21st October 1982 and it does not contemplate anything but it only lays down that the benefit of the compassionate appointment may be extended to the dependent of the officials/persons who are incapacitated by accidents or serious ailments like paralysis, Cancer, blindness etc. while in service and are compelled to leave the Bank's service before their normal retirement age. Clause-4 of the scheme contemplates that the benefits would normally be restricted to wife, son, or daughter of any employee who is compelled to leave the Bank's service on medical grounds. while in service and are compelled to leave the Bank's service before their normal retirement age. Clause-4 of the scheme contemplates that the benefits would normally be restricted to wife, son, or daughter of any employee who is compelled to leave the Bank's service on medical grounds. The scheme further contemplates that the benefit can be extended to near relative (other than wife, son or daughter) of an employee only in exceptional circumstances where it is established to the satisfaction of the Bank that such a near relative is bread-earner of the family and lastly, the scheme also takes care of the fact that in case, a widow or son or daughter is already in employment either in the Bank or otherwise, employment shall be given to another son or daughter after taking into account the individual circumstances of each case. This provision is in respect of earlier scheme. 8. The question before us is as to whether the financial criteria can be a ground for refusing compassionate appointment. The modified scheme does not contemplate anything in this regard. A compassionate appointment is dependent upon the premature retirement on the ground of illness. It was well within the domain of the Bank to inform the appellant no. 1 that look here, you may be entitled for premature retirement but your son can not get appointment since your financial status is good enough", whereas the scheme itself contemplates that appointment is to be given on the basis of ill-health and premature retirement. The said benefit was required to be given to the appellant no. 2 irrespective of the fact that the mother of appellant no. 2 was in employment. The modified scheme does not talk about the financial condition. 9. Submission of learned counsel for respondents is in respect of general scheme of compassionate appointment where it is found that either son or widow is in employment and then employment is to be given to the next person. Here in the case in hand, the situation is altogether different. Under the modified scheme, the compassionate appointment is to be offered irrespective of the financial condition and if we consider the financial condition whereby in the case of Ajay Sehgal and others, who have been stated to have sound financial condition, they have been given appointment. Here in the case in hand, the situation is altogether different. Under the modified scheme, the compassionate appointment is to be offered irrespective of the financial condition and if we consider the financial condition whereby in the case of Ajay Sehgal and others, who have been stated to have sound financial condition, they have been given appointment. So far as the case of Ajay Sehgal is concerned, it has been stated specifically by the learned counsel for the appellants in the supplementary affidavit that his father was drawing Rs. 8,000/- monthly pension and having his own house as well. The said averment has been replied in vague and evasive manner and no specific reply has been given. Apart from it, various other persons, namely, wife of late H.C. Srivastava, daughter-in-law Shri V.S. Yadav, Smt. Gayatri Singh w/o late Rajendra Singh, Sri Ashish Agarwal s/o late V.K. Agarwal, Km. Anamika Tandon adopted d/o late Dina Nath, Smt. Shallay Tandon w/o late Sanjeev Tandon, Smt. Rani Gupta w/o late R.K. Gupta, Smt. Meena Gupta, Smt. Vibha Singh, Shri Parth Singh, Sambhu Singh, Sri Ravindra, Sri G.C. Jain, son of late Puran Singh, Sri Awasthi, Sri Sudhir Kumar, Ms. Julie, Ms. Rubi Verma, Ms. Geeta Dixit, son of late Javed Akhtar, Sri Rajeev Kumar, Sri Sudhir Kumar Singh, Sri Gopalji Shukla, Sri Ajay Sehgal and Ms. Anuradha Chaudhary whose names names have been given in the supplementary affidavit filed by the appellants in the writ petition and all these persons have been given appointments and nothing has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that their financial conditions were too weak or that they were given appointment considering weak financial condition. 10. The financial condition would come into play only when the scheme itself contemplates for the same. If the scheme does not contemplate anything in regard to financial condition of the family of the retired person, then nothing can be imported by the learned counsel for the respondents to show that the financial condition would be relevant for compassionate appointment. The modified scheme does not contemplate anything to indicate that compassionate appointment can be denied on any ground, either premature retirement has to be accepted or it has not to be accepted, if it is accepted, it has to be acted upon. The premature retirement cannot be accepted in part and piecemeal, it is a composite process. The modified scheme does not contemplate anything to indicate that compassionate appointment can be denied on any ground, either premature retirement has to be accepted or it has not to be accepted, if it is accepted, it has to be acted upon. The premature retirement cannot be accepted in part and piecemeal, it is a composite process. In the process of retirement and appointment the Bank should be sure in its mind while accepting premature retirement of a person on medical ground. The subsequent turn around by the bank to say that the financial condition of appellant no. 2 was sound enough as the mother of the appellant no. 2 was in employment cannot be the ground to refuse the appointment of the appellant no. 2. 11. Learned Single Judge has also considered the fact that appellant no. 2 has become over age during the pendency of the writ petition. The law in this regard is settled that no person will suffer for the fault of Court. If the writ petition would have been decided well within time, then the appellant no. 2 would have got the benefit of appointment as he was within the age at the time of filing of the writ petition. 12. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The order dated 04.08.2014 is set aside. The Bank authorities are directed to give appointment to the appellant no. 2 as contemplated under the scheme.