Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 775 (MP)

Ganga Prasad Raidas v. Bank of India

2023-09-14

GURPAL SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2023
ORDER 1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 29.1.2018 passed by respondent No.2 in Reference No.KZO/HR/2274 by which application filed by petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father on 8.12.2002 has been rejected only on the ground that petitioner should have moved an application within a period of one year of the death of his father for keeping his claim alive and since same was not done, therefore, he is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. 2. Facts of the case are that father of petitioner died in harness on 8.12.2002. The sister of petitioner, who was also minor moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground. However, fate of the said application is not on record. 3. Be that whatever it may be. 4. It is the case of petitioner that on 21.6.2015 he filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground for the first time. Ultimately by order dated 29.1.2018, his application has been rejected on the ground that as per policy which was in force on the date of death of his father, if claimant was minor or was not having minimum qualification, then his claim could have been considered by Bank within a period of 4 years from the date of death of employee, provided minor should have requested the Bank within a period of one year from the date of death of employee alongwith the original document of date of birth and other relevant documents. 5. Petitioner has filed a rejoinder and in the said rejoinder, he has disclosed the date of birth of his sisters as well as of himself. Undisputedly, date of birth of petitioner is 20.6.1997. Since he lost his father on 8.12.2002, therefore, it is clear that at the time of death of his father, he was only 5 years and 6 months old. It is also an admitted position that petitioner had already lost his mother prior to death of his father. 6. Supreme Court in the cases of Indian Bank v. Promila, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthy by judgment dated 18.11.2021 passed in C.A. No.6903/2021 has held that policy for appointment on compassionate ground which was in force on the date of death of employee would apply. 6. Supreme Court in the cases of Indian Bank v. Promila, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthy by judgment dated 18.11.2021 passed in C.A. No.6903/2021 has held that policy for appointment on compassionate ground which was in force on the date of death of employee would apply. Neither petitioner nor respondents have placed copy of policy which was in force on the date of death of his father, therefore, this petition is being decided purely on the basis of reasons assigned by respondents in order dated 29.1.2018. 7. Letter dated 29.1.2018 reads as under : cSad vkWQ bafM;k Bank of India Ref. No. KZO/HR/2274 Date: 29th January, 2018 Jh xaxk jke jSnkl] H.No. 316, eqMokjk] lkojdj okMZ rglhy& dVuh ftyk tcyiqj ¼e-iz-½ Re: vkidk vuqdaik fu;qfDr ds fy, vkosnu vkids i= fnukad 28-5-2017 ds lanHkZ esa] vkids vuqdaik fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk xfBr lfefr ds le{k mfpr dkjZokbZ gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA 2- mDr fo"k; esa e`rd Jh jSnkl x.ks'kizlkn yYyh jke ds e`R;q fnukad 8-12-2002 dks iz/kku dk;kZy; ifji= la[;k 92@164 fnukad 17-3-1999 }kjk ifjpkfyr vuqdaik ;kstuk ds izR;sd izklafxd 'kk[kk iSjk ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr rF; izdk'k esa vk, gSaA (i) mDr ;kstuk ds varxZr vuqdaik fu;qfDr gsrq vuqjks/k izR;sd ekeys esa deZpkjh dh e`R;q frfFk i'pkr 'kh?kzre ijarq ,d o"kZ ds vanj cSad dks izsf"kr djuk pkfg,A (ii) ;fn vkfJr ukckfyx gS ;k mlds ikl mfpr U;wure vgZrk ugha gSa] rks ml ekeys es deZpkjh dh e`R;q ds pkj lky ds Hkhrj cSad }kjk foosdkuqlkj fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gS ftlls ukckfyx vkfJr dks fu;ekuqlkj r; vk;q ,oa 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk izkIr djuk laHko gks lds ijarq mDr izko/kku dks ykxw djus gsrq ukckfyx vkfJr dks deZpkjh dh e`R;q ds ,d o"kZ ds Hkhrj cSad dks vuqjks/k iznku djuk ,oa ukckfyx ds tUe frfFk dh ewy izfr ,oa vU; lacaf/kr nLrkostksa dks cSad es lk{k; gsrq tek djuk vko';d gSA 3- mDr izdj.k ,oa rF;ksa dks izkf/kd`r lfefr ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k ftldh fVIi.kh;ksa ,oa vuq'kalk ds vk/kkj ij egkizca/kd }kjk Jh xaxk jke jSnkl S/o jkbZnkl x.ks'k izlkn yYyh jke dh vuqdaik fu;qfDr gsrq izkIr vkosnu fnukad 28-5-2017 fujLr dj fn;k x;k gSA 4- d`i;k ikorh nsaA ¼jfoUnz dqekj esgrk½ mi vkapfyd izcU/kd 8. According to respondents, if aspirant was minor or was not holding a minimum qualification, then his claim can be considered by the Bank within a period of 4 years of the death of employee provided minor aspirant must request the Bank within a period of 1 year to keep his claim alive. This Court has failed to understand the logic behind the said policy. It is true that policy has not been challenged but condition of policy must also satisfy conscience of this Court and it should be prudent. Petitioner was only 5 years and 6 months old on the date of death of his father. Even if he was expected to move an application within a period of one year thereby requesting the Bank to keep his claim alive, still he would not have attained majority within a period of 4 years from date of death of his father. It is true that appointment on compassionate ground is not an alternative mode of direct recruitment and policy for appointment on compassionate ground is by way of concession to grieved family so that they can tie over unexpected situation which had arisen on account of death of their sole bread winner. The darkest side of the present petition is that petitioner had already lost his mother and unfortunately he also lost his father when he was only 5 years and 6 months old. This Court can understand that petitioner and her siblings must have been brought up by their relatives. Petitioner in one of his representation had specifically mentioned that by doing labour work he is looking after his sisters and therefore, he requested the Bank to consider his case for appointment on compassionate ground. Thus, it is clear that even on 21.6.2015 i.e. the day on which application for appointment on compassionate ground was filed for the first time, petitioner was jobless and was somehow earning livelihood by doing labour work. 9. It is submitted by counsel for respondents that since petitioner was already earning by doing labour work, therefore, he is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. The said submission cannot be accepted for the reason that a person is always expected to earn something to look after himself and his sisters and he was not expected to live a life of starvation. 10. Be that whatever it may be. 11. The said submission cannot be accepted for the reason that a person is always expected to earn something to look after himself and his sisters and he was not expected to live a life of starvation. 10. Be that whatever it may be. 11. Accordingly, counsel for respondents was directed to justify the reason behind the policy for compassionate appointment by which it was provided that claim of minor can be considered only up to the period of 4 years from the date of death provided a request is made for keeping the claim alive. In the present case, petitioner attained majority in the year 2015. During his minority, he was not expected to move an application for his appointment on compassionate ground. 12. It is not the case of respondents that even after attaining majority petitioner was sleeping over his right. 13. On the contrary, it appears that immediately after attaining majority he moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground. It is true that if grieved family can survive for a long period after the death of bread winner, then that situation by itself would frustrate the very purpose for appointment on compassionate ground but the basic purpose for appointment on compassionate ground is to make grieved family stand on their own legs. Even otherwise this Court has failed to understand as to how petitioner could have moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground prior to attaining his majority. 14. Counsel for respondents has relied upon the judgment passed by Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar and others, reported in (2000) 7 SCC 192 to submit that since petition was filed after 4 years of attaining majority, therefore, delay by itself has frustrated the basic claim of petitioner. The said submission is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. The claim of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by order dated 29.1.2018. Therefore, petition was filed within 1 and ½ year of rejection of his claim. The said submission is misconceived and is liable to be rejected. The claim of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by order dated 29.1.2018. Therefore, petition was filed within 1 and ½ year of rejection of his claim. It is next contended by counsel for respondents that Supreme Court in the case of Jagdish Prasad v. State of Bihar and another, reported in (1996) 1 SCC 301 has held that since appointment on compassionate ground is a speedy remedy and it cannot be treated as alternative mode of recruitment, therefore, dependant of a Government employee cannot be given appointment dehors the recruitment rules. Therefore, even if petitioner was minor on the date of death of his father, his claim cannot be considered. 15. Considered submission made by counsel for respondents. 16. The basic purpose for appointment on compassionate ground is to help out grieved family to face unexpected situation which has occurred on account of untimely death of their bread winner. This case has peculiar facts and circumstances, therefore, it has to be considered differently. As already pointed out mother of petitioner had already expired and father of petitioner also expired when he was only 5 years and 6 months old. Father of petitioner was survived by other minor children. The contention of petitioner in his application that by doing labour work he is somehow looking after himself and his sisters cannot be ignored. It is not a case where any other major member of family was available but he or she opted not to go for appointment on compassionate ground. 17. Under these circumstances, this Court is of considered opinion that reasons for rejection of claim for appointment on compassionate ground do not appear to be very convincing. Accordingly, order dated 29.1.2018 is hereby set aside. 18. Respondents are directed to consider the claim of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground afresh on its own merits by treating that petitioner became eligible for appointment only after attaining majority. 19. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 20. It is made clear that this order has been passed under peculiar facts and circumstances of case where mother had already expired and father also expired after leaving his minor children. 21. Petition succeeds and is hereby allowed.