Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2019 DIGILAW 292 (MP)

Deepak Sharma v. Union Bank of India

2019-04-04

G.S.AHLUWALIA

body2019
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed against the communication dated 6.6.2011, Annexure P-1, by which the petitioner was apprised of the fact that his application for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that in fact the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground which was in force on the date of death of the employee is applicable, whereas the respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner on the basis of the scheme which was in force on the date of consideration of the application. Thus, rejection of the claim for appointment on compassionate ground is bad. 3. Per contra, it is submitted by the counsel for the respondents that the Full Bench of this Court in the case of State of M.P. and others v. Laxman Prasad Raikwar, reported in 2018 (3) JLJ 654 (FB) = 2018 (4) MPLJ 657, has held that the scheme which was in force on the date of consideration of the application would be applicable and, therefore, the respondents have rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner in the light of the provisions of the scheme which was applicable on the date of consideration of the application. 4. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The father of the petitioner was an employee of Union Bank of India and he died in harness on 23.4.2002. At the time of his death, the father of the petitioner had already put in more than five years of service in the Bank and was over 35 years old. The petitioner was minor at the time of death of his father and he laid his claim for appointment on compassionate ground on 22.11.2006. At the time of death of father of the petitioner, the policy for compassionate appointment was covered by the Staff Circular of the Bank dated 19.12.1997 and according to the said policy, the petitioner should have submitted his claim within one year from the date of death of his father, however, since the petitioner was minor and, therefore, the Bank could have given him time of four years to attain majority and to acquire qualification so as to become eligible for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner laid his claim on 22.11.2006 and by that time the scheme for compassionate appointment in the Bank had changed and policy covered by Staff Circular No. 4989 dated 22.7.2003 came in force and according to that scheme, it was provided that the eligible dependent of the deceased employee can have lien for a period of four years from the date of death of the employee. In this case, the petitioner could have lien upto 23.4.2006, however, he laid his claim in the month of November, 2006, i.e. after expiry of more than four years and seven months and accordingly, the petitioner's case was not covered under the scheme of 2003. It appears that initially the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the respondents by considering the scheme which was in force on the date of death of his father and held that since the application was not filed within a period of one year from the date of death of his father, therefore, he was not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. It appears that the petitioner after rejection of his claim filed a Writ Petition No. 4937/2010 before this Court for appropriate reliefs and by order dated 6.4.2011, the order passed by the respondents was set aside by this Court and the respondents were directed to decide the claim of the petitioner as per the existing policy for compassionate appointment. In the meanwhile, the policy of 2007 came into operation, which was made applicable with retrospective effect from 31.7.2004 and as per the policy of 2007, appointment on compassionate ground can be considered, if (i) employee's death was while performing his official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity; or (ii) employee's death was within five years of his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years, whichever is later, leaving a dependent spouse and/or minor children. The case of the petitioner was considered in the light of the compassionate appointment policy which came into force in the year 2007 and accordingly, it was held that since the father of the petitioner was in service of Bank for more than five years and was over 30 years of age, therefore, the case of the petitioner is not covered by the existing policy, i.e. of the year 2007, and, hence, his case for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. 6. 6. So far as payment of ex gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment is concerned, it was held that under the Ex Gratia Scheme the dependent of the deceased employee ought to have laid his claim within six months from the date of death of the employee and, therefore, even under the said scheme the petitioner is not entitled for payment of ex gratia, as the claim was made after four years and seven months. 7. In the light of the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Laxman Prasad Raikwar (supra) it is clear that the application for appointment on compassionate ground has to be considered in the light of the policy which is in force on the date of consideration of the application. In the present case, the application for compassionate appointment was rejected for the first time in the year 2006 and on that day, the policy dated 22.7.2003 was in force and according to that policy, the dependent of the deceased employee can have lien for a period of four years from the date of death of the employee and since the petitioner had laid his claim after four years and seven months of the death of his father, therefore, he was not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under the policy dated 22.7.2003. The order of rejection of his application for appointment on compassionate ground was set aside by this Court because his application was decided in the light of the policy which was in force on the date of death of his father and now the claim has been rejected on the basis of the policy which was in force on the date of consideration of the application for second time, after the matter was remanded by the High Court. Thus, the only question for consideration is that- "Whether the policy which was in force on the date of consideration of the application for the first time would be material or the policy which was in force on the date of consideration of his application for the second time would be material?" 8. Thus, the only question for consideration is that- "Whether the policy which was in force on the date of consideration of the application for the first time would be material or the policy which was in force on the date of consideration of his application for the second time would be material?" 8. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the above-mentioned aspect would be nothing but an academic issue because both the policies, i.e. which was in force on the date of consideration of his application for the first time and the policy which was in force on the date of consideration of his application for the second time, do not cover the case of the petitioner. As per the policy which was in force at the time of consideration of the application for the first time, the petitioner was not entitled for compassionate appointment because he had laid his claim after the expiry of more than four years, whereas as per the policy which was in force on the date of consideration of his application for the second time, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment on the ground that his father had already completed more than five years of service in the Bank and was above 30 years. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the respondents did not commit any mistake in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, as he is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground under any of the policies. 9. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed.