Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 136 (UTT)

Bank of Baroda v. Sunny Kumar

2024-02-28

RAKESH THAPLIYAL, RITU BAHRI

body2024
JUDGMENT : (Ritu Bahri, CJ.) : The Bank has come-up in the Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20th December, 2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent challenging the order dated 30.07.2021 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by appellant denying him the benefit of compassionate appointment has been allowed. A direction has been given by the learned Single Judge to the Bank to immediately give compassionate appointment to the respondent within a period of eight weeks from the date of the order. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that the respondent’s father-late Shri Rajan was posted as a Class-IV regular employee with the appellant-Bank. He died, while in service, on 10.06.2019 leaving behind two sons, namely Sunny Kumar (respondent) and Sanjay Kumar, a daughter, namely Priyanka and widow-Kamlesh. The respondent moved an application on 06.07.2019 for compassionate appointment before the competent Authority of the Bank. As regards the claim of compassionate appointment raised by the respondent, other legal heirs of the deceased had given their No Objection. Vide order dated 30.07.2021, the appellant-Bank rejected the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment on the ground that Sanjay Kumar, the elder son of the deceased, is already gainfully employed and the respondent was also engaged as a Business Facilitator during the time of the death of his father late Mr. Rajan and the financial condition of the family is not proven to be indigent. 3. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ petition, observed as follows:- (1) The petitioner’s elder brother was married and was living with his family at Champawat. He has two children-one son (14 years of age) and one daughter (6 years of age) and has taken a loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- for treatment of his son from Bank of Baroda, Kelakhera, Gadarpur, and he has his own liabilities and responsibilities. (2) After the death of the respondent’s father, pension was sanctioned in favour of the wife of the deceased, i.e. the mother of the respondent and the terminal benefits were given to the family i.e. Rs. 10,55,000/-. (3) The respondent is working as a Business Facilitator in the appellant-Bank, which was a very meager amount and he could barely sustain himself with this amount. 10,55,000/-. (3) The respondent is working as a Business Facilitator in the appellant-Bank, which was a very meager amount and he could barely sustain himself with this amount. (4) As per the Scheme of compassionate appointment of the Bank (Annexure-5) dated 18.02.2016, the applicant had two options (1) to take compassionate appointment or (2) to take payment of lumpsum ex gratia amount. 4. In this Scheme, it is further provided that as per the earlier Scheme of 5th August, 2014, if any of the legal heir of the deceased had taken financial assistance, he/she, after returning the financial assistance received to the Bank, can seek appointment on compassionate ground. 5. The general conditions of the 2014 Policy read as under:- “16.1 Appointment made on grounds of compassion to be done in such a way that persons appointed to the post do not have the essential educational and technical qualifications and experience required for the post consistent with the requirement of maintenance of efficiency of administration. 16.2 It is not the intention to restrict employment of a family member of the deceased or medically retired sub-staff employee to an erstwhile sub-staff post only. As such, a family member of such erstwhile sub-staff employee can be appointed to a clerical post for which he/she is educationally qualified, provided a vacancy in clerical post exists for this purpose. 16.3 An application for compassionate appointment shall, however, not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the employees has received the benefits due/the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering a request for appointment on compassionate grounds, a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family, etc. 16.4 Compassionate appointment shall be made available to the person concerned if there is a vacancy meant for compassionate appointment and he or she is found eligible and suitable under the scheme. 16.5 Requests for compassionate appointment consequent on death or retirement on medical grounds or erstwhile sub-staff may be considered with greater sympathy by applying relaxed standards depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. 16.5 Requests for compassionate appointment consequent on death or retirement on medical grounds or erstwhile sub-staff may be considered with greater sympathy by applying relaxed standards depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. 16.6 Compassionate appointment will have precedence over absorption of surplus employees and regularization of temporary employees.” 6. A perusal of the above said Rules shows that the prayer for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected merely on the ground that family member of the deceased has received the benefit and this case should be considered by objective assessment of the financial condition of the family and the request has to be considered with greater sympathy by applying relaxed standards depending on the facts and circumstance of the case. 7. In the facts of the present case, the respondent was working as a Business Facilitator and was getting Rs. 375/- per loan, which he could get sanctioned from the Bank in favour of the client. His brother was staying separately. He had taken a loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- for treatment of his son from Bank of Baroda, Kelakhera, Gadarpur. The terminal benefit was given to the family ie. Rs. 10,55,000/-, which itself is no ground to reject the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment. In our view, the writ petition has rightly been allowed by the learned Single Judge, keeping in view the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment dated 18.02.2016 (Annexure 5 to the Appeal). The judgment dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge does not require any interference and the same is affirmed. 8. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.