Research › Search › Judgment

Orissa High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 160 (ORI)

Papuni Sahoo v. G. M. UCO Bank, Kolkata

2019-02-28

B.R.SARANGI

body2019
JUDGMENT : B.R. Sarangi, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this writ application seeking direction to the opposite parties to grant him compassionate appointment, pursuant to application dated 02.07.2015, as per clause 8.1 of the scheme floated vide circular dated 29.09.2014 in Annexure-2, by quashing letter dated 22.09.2015 in Annexure-4 whereby he has been denied such appointment on the ground that the father of the petitioner took voluntary retirement on 27.05.2015 and that he was not an employee of the bank and, therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for the same. 2. The conspectus fact of the petitioner's case is that father of the petitioner late Hatakishroe Sahoo rendered his service as "Daftary" from 01.01.1990 to 27.05.2015 with opposite party no. 3, i.e. UCO Bank, Gondia Branch, Dhenkanal. The father of the petitioner suffered from bilateral diabetic foot ulcer and hypertension CKD and as such could not discharge his duty perfectly. He applied for voluntary retirement from service on health ground and on consideration the same was accepted and approved on 27.05.2015. As the petitioner, his mother-Padmini Sahoo and younger brother-Manoj Kumar Sahoo were dependents on the petitioner's father for their daily maintenance and survival, the petitioner submitted his application on 02.07.2015 for compassionate appointment. But, the same was considered and rejected on the ground that the father of the petitioner took voluntary retirement on 27.05.2015 and was not an employee of the bank, therefore the petitioner is not eligible for such compassionate appointment under the scheme. Hence this application. 3. Mr. Y.S.P. Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner, being a legal representative of an employee working under opposite parties-UCO Bank, claimed for compassionate appointment as per scheme for compassionate appointment floated vide circular dated 29.09.2014 in Annexure-2. Instead of considering the same in proper perspective, the opposite parties rejected the claim of the petitioner vide letter dated 22.09.2015 on the ground that petitioner's father took voluntary retirement on 27.05.2015 and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment only on 02.07.2015, when his father was not an employee of the bank, though the letter of rejection itself indicates that the dependant of the permanent employee, dies while in service or retiring on medical grounds due to incapacitation before attaining the age of 55 years, can only apply for compassionate appointment. Since the petitioner's father retired from service due to medical incapacitation before attaining the age of 55 years, the petitioner has a right to apply for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with voluntary retirement scheme framed by the opposite parties-UCO Bank. 4. Mr. S.K. Mohanty, learned counsel for the opposite parties, on the other hand, contended that since the petitioner's father took voluntary retirement from service, the benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner is not admissible and as such, he supported the order of rejection communicated under Annexure-4, the letter dated 22.09.2015. 5. In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (f) of sub-section (2) of section 19 of the Banking Companies (Acquisition and Transfer of Understandings) Act, 1970, the Board of Directors of UCO Bank, after consultation with the Reserve Bank of India and with the previous sanction of the Central Government, framed a regulation called UCO Bank (Employees') Pension Regulations, 1995. Under the said Regulations, after retirement of the petitioner's father on medical ground, he is entitled to get pension. As the same was not adequate, the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment, because the breadwinner of the family was handicapped and unable to manage the family with paltry sum of money. On 29.09.2014, the UCO Bank floated a scheme for compassionate appointment in bank under Annexure-2. 6. Some of the clauses, which are relevant for the purpose of this case, are extracted hereunder:- "1. COVERAGE: 1.1 To a dependent family member of permanent employee of UCO Bank who:- (a) dies while in service (including death by suicide). (b) is retired on medical grounds due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years. (incapacitation is to be certified by a duly appointed Medical Board in a Government Medical College/Government District Head Quarters Hospitals/Panel of Doctors nominated by the Bank for the purpose). xxx xxx xxx 4. POSTS TO WHICH APPOINTMENTS CAN BE MADE 4.1. The appointment shall be made in the clerical and sub-ordinate cadre only. 5. ELIGIBILITY 5.1 The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial dissolution. 5.2 Applicant for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules. xxx xxx xxx 7. RELAXATIONS 7.1. Upper age limit cloud be relaxed wherever found to be necessary. 5. ELIGIBILITY 5.1 The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial dissolution. 5.2 Applicant for compassionate appointment should be eligible and suitable for the post in all respects under the provisions of the relevant Recruitment Rules. xxx xxx xxx 7. RELAXATIONS 7.1. Upper age limit cloud be relaxed wherever found to be necessary. The lower age limit should, however, in no case be relaxed below 18 years of age. Note 1 - Age eligibility shall be determined with reference to the date of application and not the date of appointment. Note 2 - Authority competent to take a final decision for making compassionate appointment in a case shall be competent to grant relaxation of age limit also for making such appointment. 8. TIME LIMIT FOR CONSIDERING APPLICATIONS 8.1 Application for employment under the Scheme from eligible dependent should normally be considered upto five years from the date of death or retirement on medical grounds and decision to be taken on merit in each case." 7. In view of the provisions mentioned above, petitioner's father, who was rendering service under UCO Bank, took voluntary retirement from service on medical ground on 27.05.2015. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment on 02.07.2015, a copy of which has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties. Serial No. 9 of the application form, which was submitted by the petitioner, reads thus:- 9. Reason for request for voluntary retirement (If request is under medical grounds, please state the ailment)/Resignation. Medical Grounds To the said application for compassionate appointment, an unfit certificate was appended, which was issued by the Superintendent, SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack. It has been specifically mentioned therein that the petitioner's father was suffering from bilateral diabetic foot ulcer and hypertension CKD and was not able to fit for any other work or incapacity of his duty in office. It is therefore clear that petitioner's father sought voluntary retirement on medical ground and on consideration of the unfit certificate, referred to above, he was allowed to take voluntary retirement. It is therefore clear that petitioner's father sought voluntary retirement on medical ground and on consideration of the unfit certificate, referred to above, he was allowed to take voluntary retirement. The contention of the petitioner that his father took voluntary retirement on medical ground is evident from the application for voluntary retirement which is annexed to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the opposite parties as Annexure-A. Therefore, the reason for non-grant of benefit of compassionate appointment to the petitioner is contrary to the scheme framed by the opposite parties UCO Bank. 8. Furthermore, the application for compassionate appointment having been filed within five years period of retirement of the petitioner's father, the same could not have been rejected on the ground that by the time the petitioner made the application his father was not an employee of the UCO Bank. Apart from the same, sub-clause (b) to clause-1, which deals with coverage, clearly envisages that a dependent family member of permanent employee of UCO Bank who is retired on medical grounds due to incapacitation before reaching the age of 55 years, and on the basis of the report furnished by the Superintendent of SCB Medical College and Hospital, Cuttack the petitioner is entitled to get compassionate appointment. Furthermore, in view of clause-5 of the scheme the family of the petitioner being in indigent condition deserving immediate assistance, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment should not have been rejected. 9. In Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Hakim Singh, (1997) 8 SCC 85 , the Supreme Court explained the rationale of the rule relating to compassionate appointment in these words: "The rule of appointments to public service is that they should be on merits and through open invitation. It is the normal route through which one can get into a public employment. However, as every rule can have exceptions, there are a few exceptions to the said rule also which have been evolved to meet certain contingencies. As per one such exception relief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependants in a vacancy. The object is to give succor to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole breadwinner. As per one such exception relief is provided to the bereaved family of a deceased employee by accommodating one of his dependants in a vacancy. The object is to give succor to the family which has been suddenly plunged into penury due to the untimely death of its sole breadwinner. This Court has observed time and again that the object of providing such ameliorating relief should not be taken as opening an alternative mode of recruitment to public employment." Similar view has also been taken in Commissioner of Public Instructions vs. K.R. Vishwanath, (2005) 7 SCC 206 . 10. In State of Haryana vs. Ankur Gupta, (2003) 7 SCC 704 , the apex Court held that such appointments cannot be made dehors any statutory policy and, more particularly, the compassionate appointment shall be done under a scheme providing therefor and such scheme must be commensurate with the constitutional scheme of equality. 11. Considering the factual aspects, as well as the law discussed above, this Court is of the considered view that the communication dated 22.09.2015 in Annexure-4 rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on the ground that the petitioner's father had taken voluntary retirement on 27.05.2015 and the petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment on 02.07.2015, after his father retired from service, cannot sustain in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed and is accordingly hereby quashed. Consequentially, the opposite parties are directed to consider the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of the compassionate appointment scheme floated, vide circular dated 29.09.2014 in Annexure-2, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. 12. The writ petition is thus allowed. No order as to costs.