Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2024 DIGILAW 1589 (ALL)

Harish Verma v. State of Uttar Pradesh

2024-07-03

AJIT KUMAR

body2024
JUDGMENT : AJIT KUMAR, J. 1. Heard Shri Shailesh Mani Tripathi, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, Shri Krishna Mohan Asthana, learned Advocate appearing for respondent Bank, learned Standing Counsel for the State. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 05.01.2024 passed by the respondent competent authority of the bank rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment only on the ground that his financial condition was satisfactory. 3. The argument advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner is that merely recording a fact that the financial condition was satisfactory was not sufficient enough to be taken as good ground or reason to reject the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. It is argued that in view of settled legal position, the competent authority ought to have discussed financial aspect that was involved in the matter which according to the competent authority was sufficient enough to deny the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in view of the bank's policy laid down in that regard and the circular letter issued also at the end of the bank. 4. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon various authorities like one in Union of India Vs. M.L. Capoor and others, AIR 1974 SC 87 and S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, AIR 1990 SC 1984 . 5. Meeting the arguments, learned Advocate for the respondent bank has placed reliance upon the avernments made in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit in which details of terminal dues and other financial status of the petitioner has been discussed in detail and submits that this itself discloses that the financial background of the petitioner was sound enough to take him out of the zone of consideration as per the policy of the bank and circular letter issued. He has also placed reliance upon the authorities cited in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Shashi Kumar, 2019 (3) SCC 653 and also State Bank of India Vs. Somvir Singh, 2007 (4) SCC 778 and the ratio laid down in these judgment 6. He has also placed reliance upon the authorities cited in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh and others Vs. Shashi Kumar, 2019 (3) SCC 653 and also State Bank of India Vs. Somvir Singh, 2007 (4) SCC 778 and the ratio laid down in these judgment 6. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and having perused the record particularly the order impugned, I find that the order simply records in one line that “It was found that financial condition of dependent of the deceased was satisfactory and, therefore, no circumstances were found sound enough to offer him compassionate appointment.” In my considered view this one line satisfaction seems to be based upon some material that ought to have been discussed as has been discussed in paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit. There is no quarrel upon the legal position and that the bank can make its own circular and compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of vested right. However, while passing the order denying a claim means that right at least a substantive right which as per the bank own policy vests in the dependents of the deceased, a well reasoned order should have been passed. Thus, consideration should be objective enough so as to apprise the concerned aggrieved party about valid reasons for denial of claim for compassionate appointment. 7. The law is well settled, no amount of defence taken in the reply or pleading can substitute the lacuna as to reasoning in the order if the order is cryptic and, accordingly. In the case of Mohinder Singh Gill Vs. Chief Election Commissioner, (1978) 1 SCC 405 vide paragraph-8 Court has observed thus: “8. The second equally relevant matter is that when a statutory functionary makes an order based on certain grounds, its validity must be judged by the reasons so mentioned and cannot be supplemented by fresh reasons in the shape of affidavit or otherwise. Otherwise, an order bad in the beginning may, by the time it comes to Court on account of a challenge, get validated by additional grounds later brought out.” 8. In view of the above, the order dated 05.01.2024, impugned herein this petition is held unsustainable. The order dated 05.01.2024 Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, passed by the Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank (respondent No. 3) is hereby quashed. 9. In view of the above, the order dated 05.01.2024, impugned herein this petition is held unsustainable. The order dated 05.01.2024 Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition, passed by the Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank (respondent No. 3) is hereby quashed. 9. The matter is remitted to the Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank (respondent No. 3) to pass fresh order, this time reasoned and speaking one. 10. It is clarified that merely because certain details have not been found to be placed in the order regarding financial condition or background of the petitioner should not itself become a ground to deny the claim again and there has to be an objective consideration of the material available before the authority while passing the order and the order should be reasoned and speaking one. Appropriate decision should be taken by the competent authority within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.