JUDGMENT : (C. M. Application No.2 of 2022) 1. This is an application seeking condonation of delay in filing the special appeal. Office has reported a delay of 5 days. 2. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay, we find that the delay has sufficiently been explained. 3. Accordingly, the application is allowed and delay in preferring the special appeal is condoned. Order on memo of Special Appeal 4. Heard Shri Lalit Shukla, learned counsel for the appellants-bank authorities and Shri Yogesh Kesarwani, learned counsel representing the sole respondent. 5. By means of this intra-court appeal, the appellants have sought to challenge the judgement and order dated 13.04.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ-A No.5709 of 2022, whereby the writ petition has been allowed and the order dated 20.06.2002 rejecting the claim of the respondent-petitioner for compassionate appointment has been quashed and further, a direction has been issued to the appellants to consider the claim of the respondent-petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment within a period of six weeks. 6. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants is two folds. Firstly, he has submitted that since disciplinary proceedings against the father of the petitioner, who was the employee in the bank, was in contemplation before his death, as such in terms of the scheme of compassionate appointment, the respondent-petitioner cannot be given appointment on compassionate grounds. Secondly, it has also been argued that since the death of the father of the petitioner, considerable time has lapsed, as such in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and another vs. Shashi Kumar, reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653 , respondent is not entitled to seek compassionate appointment at this point of time. 7. So far as the first argument made by the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, we may reproduce the provision contained in paragraph 10(iv) of the Scheme for Recruitment of Dependents of Employees Who Die in Harness on which he intends to rely. The said provision is extracted here under: 10(iv). 7. So far as the first argument made by the learned counsel for the appellants is concerned, we may reproduce the provision contained in paragraph 10(iv) of the Scheme for Recruitment of Dependents of Employees Who Die in Harness on which he intends to rely. The said provision is extracted here under: 10(iv). In case where the deceased employee had been awarded minor penalty or disciplinary proceedings against the employee was pending or contemplated at the time of death of the employee, which would prima-facie have resulted in award of minor penalty, appointment on compassionate grounds of the dependents will be considered with the approval of the bank's board. In case where the deceased employee had been awarded major penalty or disciplinary proceedings against the employee was pending or contemplated at the time of death of the employee, which would prima-facie have resulted in award of major penalty, appointment on compassionate grounds of the dependents will be considered with the approval of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division). 8. As per the aforequoted provision of the scheme, in a case where the deceased employee was awarded major penalty or disciplinary proceedings against him were pending or contemplated at the time of death of the employee, which would prima-facie has resulted in award of major penalty, appointment on compassionate ground of the dependents is to be considered with the approval of the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division). 9. Learned counsel for the appellants has drawn our attention to the resolution of the Board of Governor of the appellants-bank which is available at page 110 of this special appeal and reads as under: The Board directed that employment on compassionate ground need not be considered in cases where major penalty was awarded/considered/contemplated to employees on account of fraud/forgery/misappropriation, on account of any vigilance angle/negligence and authorized the Executive Director to consider only those cases not involving the above, for employment of dependent of deceased employees on compassionate ground. 10. The said decision of the Board of Governors appears to have been taken on a reference made to the Board of Governors of the appellants-bank vide letter dated 08.04.2002 which is available at pages 158 to 160 of this special appeal. 10. The said decision of the Board of Governors appears to have been taken on a reference made to the Board of Governors of the appellants-bank vide letter dated 08.04.2002 which is available at pages 158 to 160 of this special appeal. The reference made to the Board of Governors, which led the decision dated 20.06.2002, is related to 12 cases including the case of the petitioner as well, which were referred to the Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs for approval as per aforequoted paragraph 10(iv) of the Scheme. The Board of Governors on the said reference contained in the letter dated 08.04.2002 took a decision that employment on compassionate ground need not be considered in cases where major penalty was awarded/considered/contemplated to employees on account of fraud/forgery/misappropriation, on account of any vigilance angle/negligence. The resolution further states that the Board of Governors authorized the Executive Director to consider only those cases not involving the aforesaid, for employment of dependent of deceased employees on compassionate ground. 11. Based on the said resolution of the Board of Governors, the decision not to consider the case/rejecting the claim of the respondent-petitioner seeking compassionate employment was communicated by the Assistant General Manager vide his letter dated 16.10.2002 as is available at page 109 of this special appeal. When we consider the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants-bank, what we find is that the Board of Governors in its meeting held on 20.06.2002 had decided not to consider the cases for compassionate appointment where the deceased employee concerned was either punished with major penalty or such a penalty was in contemplation before death. 12. The issue, which needs to be considered and which actually has been considered by the learned Single Judge in the order under appeal is as to whether there was any disciplinary proceedings contemplated against the father of the respondent-petitioner before his death. It is not in dispute that neither the father of the petitioner was suspended, nor was any charge-sheet issued to him before his death. Father of the respondent-petitioner is said to have died on 28.07.2000 and till the said date, he was neither placed under suspension either on institution of disciplinary proceedings or in contemplation thereof. There is nothing on record to indicate that even the charge-sheet was issued what to say about the same being served upon the deceased employee. Father of the respondent-petitioner is said to have died on 28.07.2000 and till the said date, he was neither placed under suspension either on institution of disciplinary proceedings or in contemplation thereof. There is nothing on record to indicate that even the charge-sheet was issued what to say about the same being served upon the deceased employee. The only assertion made on behalf of the appellants is that charge-sheet was under preparation which means charge sheet was not issued. 13. In our considered opinion, merely because the charge-sheet was said to be under preparation before the death of the father of the respondent-petitioner, it cannot be said that any major penalty was in contemplation. Thus, the aforesaid submission made by the learned counsel for the appellants does not appeal to this Court which is hereby rejected. 14. Regarding the other ground urged by the learned counsel for the appellants to challenge the order under appeal based on the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Kumar (supra), we may only observe that in the said case the employee concerned had died on 29.03.2005 whereas writ petition for compassionate appointment was instituted on 11.05.2015 i.e. after a lapse of 10 years. It is also to be noticed that in the said case of Shashi Kumar (supra) the application seeking compassionate appointment was made after lapse of a period of about 2 years from the death of the employee i.e. on 08.05.2007 which was rejected on 15.01.2008. After rejection of the claim in the year 2008 the writ petition was instituted after a lapse of 7 years i.e. in the year 2015. It is in these facts and circumstances of the said case that Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that, "this sense of immediacy is evidently lost by the delay on the part of the dependent in seeking compassionate appointment". In the said facts Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that the dependent of the deceased employee was barred from seeking compassionate appointment by the delay as well, and by the lapse of time which has taken place. 15. However, the facts in the case of the present case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in the case of Shashi Kumar (supra). In the instant case, father of the respondent-petitioner died on 28.07.2000. 15. However, the facts in the case of the present case are clearly distinguishable from the facts in the case of Shashi Kumar (supra). In the instant case, father of the respondent-petitioner died on 28.07.2000. Immediately after his death respondent-petitioner applied for compassionate appointment which in terms of the paragraph 10(iv) of the scheme of compassionate appointment which was in vogue in the establishment of appellants-bank, the matter was referred to the Government of India and finally, when the reference was pending, the Board of Governors of the appellants-bank a decision dated 20.06.2002 which is the basis of rejection of the claim of the respondent-petitioner. The respondent-petitioner immediately instituted the proceedings of writ petition, namely, Writ A No.5709 of 2002 which has now been decided by the learned Single Judge by means of the judgment and order dated 13.04.2002 which is under appeal herein. Thus, the lapse of time, if any, cannot be attributed to the respondent-petitioner and as such in our considered opinion, the judgment in the case of Shashi Kumar (supra) does not come to the rescue of the appellants-bank authorities. 16. For the reasons aforesaid, we are not persuaded to take a view different from the view taken by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition by means of the judgment and order dated 13.04.2002. 17. The special appeal is, thus, dismissed. 18. There will be no order as to costs.