J.C. Road, Bangalore (Karnataka) v. Vivek Martin S
Case Details
1 / 6 2025:CGHC:2398-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 3 of 2025 1 - Assistant General Manager Hrm Section, Canara Bank, Circle Office, Plot No. 4, Psp, Area Near Aiims, Saket Nagar, Bhopal, District Bhopal (M.P.) 2 - Assistant General Manager Canara Bank, General Administration Section Regional Office, 3rd Floor, Rama Port, Vyapar Vihar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). 3 - Chief Manager, Canara Bank, Main Branch, Opposite Old High Court Building, Bilaspur, C.G. 4 - Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank, Human Resources Wing 112, J.C. Road, Bangalore (Karnataka) ... Appellants versus Vivek Martin S/o Late Suresh Martin Aged About 26 Years R/o Ward No. 4, Madhukar Gali, Katurba Nagar, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.). (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ---- Respondent For Appellants :
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Sunil Pillai, Advocate with P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Shri R Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Hon'ble Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN Order on Board 2 / 6 Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 15/01/2025 1. Heard on I.A. No. 2 of 2024, which is an application for condonation delay in filing the writ appeal. 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed, the delay in filing the writ appeal is condoned. 3. The present writ appeal has been filed against the impugned order dated 17.09.2024, passed by learned Single Judge, in WPS No. 9084
Decision
of 2022, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent No. 1 has been allowed and a direction to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been passed, 4. The facts of the case for consideration of the writ appeal are that the father of the petitioner, namely; late Suresh Kumar Martin was the employee of the writ appellant/bank and was posted as peon. He died in harness on 26.08.2019. After death of his father, the petitioner has moved an application for compassionate appointment on 13.05.2020. The application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was dismissed by the bank vide order dated 07.10.2020 and his subsequent representation has again dismissed vide order dated 07.06.2021. 5. After dismissal of his request for grant of compassionate appointment, the petitioner filed a WPS No. 3608 of 2021 before this Court, which was allowed vide order dated 17.08.2022 and the bank was directed to 3 / 6 re-examine the matter and to pass a well reasoned order considering the assets and liabilities and entitlement of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in terms of sub-clause 7 of clause 19 of the policy of the bank. The claim of the petitioner again rejected by the bank vide order dated 02.12.2022, which was again challenged by the petitioner in the present writ petition, in which the learned Single Judge has passed the impugned order dated 17.09.2024 and directed the respondent/bank to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. which is under challenge in the present appeal filed by the bank. 6. Learned counsel for the writ appellant/bank would submit that the case of the petitioner (respondent herein) was considered by the bank in view of sub-clause 7 of clause 19 of the policy for compassionate appointment and assessment of assets and liabilities of the petitioner and after recording a detailed finding, the petitioner was not found suitable for compassionate appointment. He would further submit that when the family members of the petitioner is found capable enough to survive, the petitioner cannot claim as a matter of right for appointment on compassionate ground. He would further submit that the scheme of compassionate employment is being floated to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis by providing gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased, who is eligible for employment. In the present case the family of the deceased was not in sudden crisis and was not required for any gainful employment of any of the dependent of the deceased. Therefore, in view of the sub-clause 7 of clause 19 of the scheme/policy, the petitioner cannot 4 / 6 be extended benefit of compassionate appointment. He would further submit that an amount of about Rs. 35 lakhs has been paid to the family of the deceased employee as his terminal benefits. He would also submit that the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others, (1994) 4 SCC 138 and State Bank of India v. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571 have not been considered properly by learned Single Judge and has erroneously passed the order, which is liable to be set aside and therefore, the writ appeal filed by the appellant/bank is liable to be allowed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant/bank and perused the material annexed with the writ appeal as well as writ petition. 8. It is not in dispute that the writ appellant/bank has paid the terminal benefits of the deceased employee, which comes to about Rs. 35 lakhs. The controversy revolved in this writ petition as well as writ appeal around sub-clause 7 of clause 19 of the policy of the writ appellant/bank with respect to compassionate appointment. Sub- clause 7 of clause 19 of the policy is reproduced herein below: “An application for compassionate appointment shall, however, not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the employee has received 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 5 / 6 earning member, size of the family etc.” 9. Learned Single Judge has considered the above said clause of the policy that it has two parts, and first part says that, the application for compassionate appointment shall not be rejected on the ground that the family of the deceased has received the terminal benefits under the various welfare schemes. The second part says that while considering the request for compassionate appointment, the assets and liabilities including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes are to be considered including all other relevant factors, such as presence of earning member and size of the family. The learned Single Judge after considering the object and also considering the order passed by the writ appellant/bank comes into conclusion that if a regular employee dies in harness, the terminal benefits would be given to the family members or spouse as the case may be. Only on the ground that terminal benefits have been extended to the family members of the deceased employee, the request for compassionate appointment cannot be rejected. Looking to the inflation, sometimes that may not be sufficient to live a very respectful life as being led by them while the employee was alive. The investment of the deceased employee cannot be said to be the actual monetary benefits or as the assured value of the policies. 10. After consideration of entire material produced before it, the learned Single Judge has concluded that the assessment made by the authorities concerned with respect to financial condition of the family of the deceased appears to be erroneous and against the sub- clause 7 of clause 19 of the policy for compassionate appointment. 6 / 6 The learned Single Judge after relying upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Canara Bank and Another v. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412, Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others, (2000) 6 SCC 493 has passed the order directed the writ appellant/bank to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment to him. 11. The learned Single Judge while passing its order, adverted all the facts of the case as well as law applicable to the case and has rightly comes into conclusion in favor of the petitioner. There is no palpable infirmity shown by the writ appellant/bank in the order impugned, which warrants interference by this Court in the impugned order. 12. Consequently, the writ appeal deserves to be and hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved