Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 540 (ALL)

PRADEEP KUMAR NIRMAL v. UNION OF INDIA

2017-02-15

ABHINAVA UPADHYA

body2017
JUDGMENT Hon’ble Abhinava Upadhya, J.—By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has come to this Court seeking compassionate appointment on account of violent death of his father on 16.5.2015 while working in the Bank. The cause of death was gun shot injury by the Guard of the Bank. 2. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, which has now been rejected on the ground that the petitioner is over age. The petitioner was 28 years of age. Even after grant of age relaxation, the petitioner is still over age. The petitioner’s age is 36 years, 9 months and odd. In the policy for compassionate appointment under which the petitioner is claiming appointment the age limit would be as prescribed in the recruitment policy. The Chief General Manager is the Higher Authority of the Bank and while rejecting the claim of the petitioner has held that the age limit for engagement with the bank according to recruitment policy is 28 years and with relaxation to reserved category 5 years’ relaxation is provided, which means 33 years. At the moment, the petitioner is over age by more than 3 years and therefore, his claim has been rejected. 3. That being the case, the petitioner has not been found eligible under the said scheme, no relief can be granted. The petitioner’s claim for ex gratia payment can be considered by the bank in accordance with law. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has challenged the Scheme. Clause-9 of the Scheme provides for age bar according to recruitment policy. The only reason for the challenge of the aforesaid scheme is that the widow has been granted age relaxation upto the age of 40 years whereas other dependents have not been given such relaxation. It is further submitted that for compassionate appointment the age criteria should not have been provided as it is against the very concept of the compassionate appointment. 5. I am unable to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Simple reason is that according to recruitment policy, which is applicable to all, the widow has been granted a special status of age relaxation upto to the age of 40 years. It is to be noted that the compassionate appointment is not a regular mode of appointment. Simple reason is that according to recruitment policy, which is applicable to all, the widow has been granted a special status of age relaxation upto to the age of 40 years. It is to be noted that the compassionate appointment is not a regular mode of appointment. It is provided essentially to tide over or mitigate the financial crisis that the family faces upon sudden demise of the sole bread earner. To overcome such eventuality in exceptional circumstances, compassionate appointment is provided but as a general rule, an ex gratia payment is made. 6. Therefore, submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner with regard to challenge of the appointment policy is baseless. 7. The writ petition has no merits and it is accordingly dismissed.