SMT.MEENA DEVI v. THE STATE BANK OF INDIA & ORS

condition can not be termed as penurious. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has come to this Court. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in the past many dependents of even senior officials like the General Manager, etc. have been granted compassionate appointment and thus non- grant of the same to the petitioner amounts to discrimination. Learned counsel for the Bank, however, relies upon two decisions of the Supreme Court with respect to compassionate appointments under the same Scheme of the State Bank of India as has been applied to the case of the petitioner, namely, State Bank of India and others Vs. Jaspal Kaur: 2007 (2) PLJR (SC) 39 and the State Bank of India and another Vs. Somvir Singh: 2007 (2) PLJR (SC) 46. In the case of Somvir Singh ( supra) it has been held in paragraph Nos. 10,12, and 13 of the decision as follows: “10. There is no dispute whatsoever that the appellant- Bank is required to consider the request for compassionate appointment only in accordance with the Scheme framed by it and no discretion as such left with any of the authorities to make compassionate appointment de hors the scheme. In our considered opinion the claim for compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. There is no right of whatsoever nature to claim compassionate appointment on any ground other than the one, if any, conferred by the employer by way of scheme or instructions as the case may be.

12. The Competent Authority while considering the application had taken into consideration each one of those factors and accordingly found that the dependants of employee who died in harness are not in penury and without any means of livelihood. The Authority did not commit any error in taking the terminal benefits and the investments and the monthly family income including the family 3 pension paid by the bank into consideration for the purposes of deciding as to whether the family of late Zile Singh had been left in penury or without any means of livelihood. The scheme framed by the appellant- Bank in fact mandates the Authority to take those factors into consideration. The Authority also did not commit any error in taking into consideration the income of the family from other sources viz, the agricultural land.

13. In our considered opinion the High court itself could not have undertaken any exercise to decide as to what would be the reasonable income which would be sufficient for the family for its survival and whether it had been left in penury or without any means of livelihood. The only question the High Court could have adverted itself is whether the decision making process rejecting the claim of the respondent for compassionate appointment is vitiated? Whether the order is not in conformity with the scheme framed by the appellant- Bank? It is not even urged that the order passed by the Competent Authority is not in accordance with the Scheme. It is well settled that the hardship of the dependant does not entitled one to compassionate appointment de hors the scheme or the statutory provisions as the case may be. The income of the family from all sources is required to be taken into consideration according to scheme which the High Court altogether ignored while remitting the matter for fresh consideration by the appellant-Bank. It is not a case where the dependants of the deceased employee are left „without any means of livelihood‟ and unable to make both ends meet. The High Court ought not to have disturbed the finding and the conclusion arrived at by the appellant-Bank that the respondent was not living hand to mouth. As observed by this Court in General Manager ( D & PB) and others vs. Kunti Tiwary and anr.[ (2004) 7 SCC271], the High Court cannot dilute the criteria „of penury to one of‟ “not very well-to-do”. The view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court may amount to varying the existing scheme framed by the appellant-Bank. Such a course is impermissible in law.” On a consideration of the aforesaid decisions and propositions laid down by the Apex Court, it is evident that the case of the petitioner could only have been considered in terms of the Scheme then prevailing and it is not for this Court to come to an independent conclusion regarding what should be the reasonable income sufficient for the family for its survival. It is not the case of learned counsel for the petitioner that the order has been passed contrary to the Scheme of the State Bank of India. His only contention is that the local authorities had made a different recommendation from what has been arrived at by 4 the Corporate Centre. This Court has only to consider whether the conclusion arrived at by the competent authority is in accordance with the Scheme or not. It is for the said authorities on the basis of the facts and figures arrived at in terms of the Scheme to come to the conclusion whether a person is entitled to compassionate appointment or not. In view of the fact that the take home pay of the deceased employee has been found to be Rs. 3872/- whereas the total monthly income of the family calculated in terms of the Scheme is Rs.3070/-, it cannot be said that the conclusion arrived at by the competent authority is perverse. In the said circumstances, there is no scope for interference with the same under the writ jurisdiction of this Court. In the above circumstances, this Court does not find any merit in the writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)