Deepu Kumar @ Deepu Kumar Singh v. The Chairman, Punjab National Bank, New Delhi, Vikaji Comma Palace, New Delhi

Patna High Court CWJC No.13510 of 2008 (2) dt.01-08-2013 Zonal Office, Ara, died in harness on 08.05.2002. Thereafter, an application was filed before the Bank by mother of the petitioner in the year 2003 for appointment of her son, who is the petitioner, on compassionate ground. Since on the date of application, the petitioner had not attained majority, the mother of the petitioner was advised to apply after the petitioner attains majority. Subsequently, it has been pleaded that application was filed and finally vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition i.e. on 26.06.2004, request for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was rejected on three grounds, namely, (i) the family was in receipt of terminal dues, (ii) the family was receiving family pension from the bank, and (iii) the family was residing in its own residential accommodation. Though , rejection order was passed in the year 2004, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition in the month of September,2008 with a prayer to quash Annexure-4 to the writ petition and direct the Respondents/Bank to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument submits that rejection order was contrary to the scheme of the Bank, which provides employment on compassionate ground. It was submitted that only on the ground that family had 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.13510 of 2008 (2) dt.01-08-2013 received terminal dues and family was receiving family pension, the claim for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument has heavily relied on a Judgment of Apex Court reported in AIR 2000 SC 1596; Balbir Kaur & Anr. Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd & Ors. He has specifically referred to paragraph-13 of the Judgment , which is as follows: “13. Mr.Bhasme, learned Advocate appearing for the Steel Authority contended that the Family Benefit Scheme was introduced on 21st November,1992 and the salient features of the Scheme were to the effect that the family being unable to obtain regular salary from the management, could avail of the scheme by depositing the lump sum provident fund and gratuity amount with the company in lieu of which the management would make monthly payment equivalent to the basic pay together with dearness allowance last drawn, which payment would continue till the normal date of superannuation of the employee in question. Mr. Bhasme further contended that adaptation of this Family Benefit Scheme was meant to provide an assured or regular income per month, while the bulk amount deposited by way of provident fund and gratuity with the management remained intact. Mr. Bhasme, contended that consequently on deposits as above, with the management, the employee’s family could avail of pay up to normal date of superannuation 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.13510 of 2008 (2) dt.01-08-2013 on the footing that the employee though not actually working but notionally continued to work till the normal date of superannuation and such a scheme in fact stands at a much better footing and much more beneficial to an employee or a deceased employee. Apparently these considerations weighed with the High Court and the latter thus proceeded on the basis that by reason of adaptation of Family Benefit Scheme by the Employees’ Union, question of any departure therefrom or any compassionate appointment does not and cannot arise. But in our view this Family Benefit Scheme cannot be in any way equated with the benefit of compassionate appointments. The sudden jerk in the family by reason of the death of the bread earner can only be absorbed by some lump sum amount being made available family—This rather unfortunate but this is a reality. The feeling of security drops to zero on the death of the bread earner and insecurity thereafter reigns and it is at that juncture if some lump sum amount is made available with a compassionate appointment, the grief sticken family may find some solace to the mental agony and manage its affairs in the normal course of events. It is not that monetary benefit would be the replacement of the bread earner, but that would undoubtedly bring some solace to the situation.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on a Division Bench Judgment reported in 2003(1) PLJR 393; Kunti 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.13510 of 2008 (2) dt.01-08-2013 Tiwary & Anr.Vs. The General Manager, Zonal Office, State Bank of India & Ors. Taking aid of Balbir Kaur’s case (supra), it has been argued that merely on the ground that terminal dues have been paid and family is receiving family pension, appointment on compassionate ground cannot be denied. On the aforesaid ground, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition is fit to be allowed. Learned counsel the Respondent/Bank has vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner. He has firstly raised a plea that the present writ petition is fit to be rejected only on the ground that the petitioner has approached this Court at much belated stage. He submits that the father of the petitioner died in the year 2002 and claim for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was rejected in the year 2004, even thereafter, he sat over the matter for about four years and he approached this Court in the month of September, 2008 and, as such, the writ petition is fit to be rejected on this ground alone. He submits that as per scheme for appointment on compassionate ground, which has been adopted in the Bank, employment on compassionate ground is to be given in a case, where it is established that the family of the deceased employee have no financial position to survive. He has specifically referred to object 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.13510 of 2008 (2) dt.01-08-2013 of the scheme, which has been brought on record as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It would be appropriate to quote the object of the scheme , which is as follows: Object of the Scheme: The object of the scheme is to consider compassionate employment to the dependent of an employee dying in harness leaving his family without any means of livelihood. Mere death of an employee in harness would not however, entitle his dependents to such employment. Bank will consider compassionate employment only in such cases where it is satisfied that the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee is such that but for the provision of employment to his dependent, the family will not be able to meet the crisis it facts at the time of death of the said employee.” Learned counsel for the Bank further submits that under the scheme, there are certain conditions for appointment, which has been mentioned in clause 10 of the Scheme. It is appropriate to quote Clause-10 of the Scheme, which is as follows: “10. Financial condition of family: The dependents of an employee dying in harness may be considered for compassionate appointment provided the family is without sufficient means of livelihood, specifically keeping in view the following: a) Family pension: b) Gratuity amount received: c) Employee’s /Employer’s contribution to P.F. 7 Patna High Court CWJC No.13510 of 2008 (2) dt.01-08-2013 d) Any compensation paid by the bank of its welfare fund: e) Proceeds of LIC policy and other investments of the deceased employee: f) Income for family from other sources: g) Employment of other family members: h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any, etc.” In support of his argument that the writ petition is fit to be rejected on the ground of delay, he has relied upon a Judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1994)4 SCC 138 ; Umesh Prasad Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. He has specifically referred to paragraph-6 of the Judgment, which is quoted herein below: “6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” He further submits that the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in Kunti Tiwary’s case ( supra), on which reliance was placed on behalf of the petitioner, has already been overruled 8 Patna High Court CWJC No.13510 of 2008 (2) dt.01-08-2013 by the Apex Court , which has been reported in (2004)7 SCC 271; General Manager (D & PB) and Ors Vs. Kunti Tiwary & Anr. On the aforesaid grounds, it has been argued that the writ petition is fit to be rejected. Besides hearing the parties, I have also perused the materials available on record. Fact remains that the father of the petitioner died in the year 2002 and application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected in the year 2004 vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Besides the fact that finally the claim for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected in the year 2004 without any rhyme and reason , the petitioner did not take any immediate step against rejection order and he approached this Court after four years for appointment on compassionate ground. The appointment on compassionate ground is virtually an exception to the provision contained in Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The appointment on compassionate ground may not be claim as a matter of right, but it has to be provided on the basis of Scheme or Rules framed by the employer. In the present case, for giving compassionate appointment, the Bank had framed scheme, copy of the same has been brought on record vide Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The scheme itself indicates that the compassionate appointment is 9 Patna High Court CWJC No.13510 of 2008 (2) dt.01-08-2013 to be provided in a case where the family of the deceased employee is not in a position to survive without providing appointment on compassionate ground to member of the deceased family. Moreover, Clause 10 of the Scheme has also specified that if adequate financial assistance is provided to a family, in that case one cannot claim for appointment on compassionate ground. The case of the petitioner is almost identical to the case as reported in (2004)7 SCC 271; General Manager (D & PB) and Ors Vs. Kunti Tiwary & Anr. In that case also identical situation was prevailing and the Apex Court interfered with the order of the High Court, whereby employment on compassionate ground was given. In the present case, a specific stand has been taken by the Respondent Bank that the deceased employee left behind him his widow and two sons. In the counter affidavit, an application filed by mother of the petitioner has also been brought on record vide Annexure- B/1, wherein it has been indicated that mother of the petitioner, namely, Kalawati Kunwar, had three sons; elder son died on

23.01.2003 and she was having two daughters, who were already married. She was having two sons; one is the petitioner and one another Sri Pradip Kumar Singh. Meaning thereby that number of family of deceased employee on the date of filing of application was three. It has been indicated in the counter affidavit that family 10 Patna High Court CWJC No.13510 of 2008 (2) dt.01-08-2013 of the deceased employee was paid following terminal dues: Provident Fund Rs.1,86,198.08 Gratuity Rs. 1,74,240.00 Leave Encashment Rs. 1,10,369.00 Beni Voilet fund Rs. 40,000.00 Ex-Gratia Rs. 24,000.00 Waiver of housing loan Rs. 93,695.00 Others Rs. 1,47,000.00 Total Rs. 7,75,504.08 Apart from the payment of the above terminal dues, the wife of the deceased employee was also allowed family pension of Rs.4808/- per month. Besides this, the family of the deceased had got its own residential accommodation in the township of Arrah and roughly it was valued at about Rs.10 Lacs. In view of the averment made in the counter affidavit, it is evident that the family of the deceased employee was in a position to survive and, as such, the Respondents/Bank has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner vide Annexure-4 to the writ petition. Moreover, as per law laid down by the Apex Court, the compassionate appointment cannot be granted as a matter of course that too at belated stage. The petitioner himself has approached this Court after four years from rejection of claim for appointment on compassionate ground. 11 Patna High Court CWJC No.13510 of 2008 (2) dt.01-08-2013 In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances as well as proposition of law, the Court is of the opinion that there is no ground for interference in the matter. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. NKS/- (Rakesh Kumar, J)