High Court · 2012

By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has put to challenge the Annexure-XIII order dated 5.6.2004, by which the prayer of the petitioner for co mpassionate appointment was rejected. Earlier, the petitioner had approached thi s Court by filling a writ petition being WP(C) No. 5052/1999 by which a prayer w as made for appointment on compassionate ground on the basis of the scheme preva lent for such appointment in the respondent bank. The writ petition was disposed of by judgement and order dated 8.1.2002 directing the respondent bank to consi der the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. It was a lso provided that the case of the petitioner should not be rejected on the groun d of delay as the father of the petitioner had retired from service on medical g round on 1.10.1992 but the same was intimated only in the year 1994.

2. Pursuant to the aforesaid judgement and order, the case of the petitione r was considered and rejected by Annexure-XI order dated 10.4.2002. In the order , it was recorded that the father of the petitioner was allowed to go on retirem ent on medical ground w.e.f. 1.10.1992 and the approval of such retirement was c onveyed to the petitioner in July, 1994. Referring to the terminal benefits paid to the father of the petitioner including monthly pension, it was contended tha t the petitioner was not entitled to the compassionate appointment. In the mean time, the petitioner filed Contempt case being Contempt Case(C) No. 329/2002 all eging violation of the directions contained in the said judgement and order. The Contempt petition was disposed off by order dated 03.03.2004 holding the allege d contemnor not guilty of the Contempt of Court but at the same time, direction was issued to re-consider the case of the petitioner taking note of the attendin g facts and circumstances, which were prevalent at the time of retirement of the petitioner on medical ground. After the aforesaid order, the Annexure-XIII orde r impugned in this writ petition having been passed on 5.6.2004, the petitioner has once again approached the Court by filling the instant writ petition.

3. I have heard Mr. S.K. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. B. Das, learned counsel led by Mr. L. Talukdar, learned counsel represent ing the respondent Bank i.e. SBI.

4. The father of the petitioner had gone on retirement on medical ground on 1.10.1992. By now, nearly 20 years have gone by and in the mean time, the petit ioner has attained the age around 42 years. As recorded in the order dated 13.2. 2012 passed in this proceeding, the bank in the mean time has abolished the poli cy of compassionate appointment. Mr. Medhi, learned counsel for the petitioner h as submitted that in view of the earlier orders of this Court, the respondent ba nk was obliged to consider the case of the petitioner in a meaningful manner. He submits that the impugned order dated 5.6.2004 being the replica of the earlier order of rejection dated 10.4.2002, it is apparent that there was no proper app lication of mind and that the respondent bank was pre-determined to reject the c ase of the petitioner.

5. Countering the above arguments, Mr. Das, learned counsel led by Mr. L. T alukdar, learned counsel representing the respondent bank submits that there can not be any endless compassion. He submits that compassionate appointment being n ot a source of recruitment, the petitioner cannot claim such appointment and tha t too after 20 years of retirement of his father on medical ground.

6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the lea rned counsel for the parties and also considered the entire materials on records .

7. The case of the petitioner was first rejected by order dated 10.4.2002 w hich was passed pursuant to the order dated 8.1.2002 passed in WP(C) No. 5052/19 99. By the said order, direction was issued to the respondent bank to consider t he case of the petitioner without insisting on the delay in making the applicati on. Pursuant to the said order, the respondents passed the order dated 10.4.2002 rejecting the case of the petitioner, primarily on the ground of delay. However , it was also noticed that the father of the petitioner had received a substanti al amount by way of retirement and pensionary benefit.

8. In the contempt petition filed by the petitioner, this Court by its judg ement and order dated 3.3.2004 while holding that the officials of the responden t bank were not responsible for violation of the aforesaid direction of this Cou rt but issued direction for reconsideration of the case of the petitioner taking note of all the relevant facts and circumstances as were prevailed at the time of retirement of the father of the petitioner on medical ground.

9. It is true that the impugned order dated 5.6.2004 refers to some of the observations made in the earlier order of rejection dated 10.4.2002 but it is al so equally true that there is reflection in the order about consideration of the case of the petitioner as on the date of acceptance of the voluntary retirement of his father. As was directed by this Court in the aforesaid judgement and ord er dated 3.3.2004 passed in Contempt Case (C) No. 329/2002, taking note of the d irections contained in the said order, the CGM of the bank has passed the impugn ed order, taking note of the scheme for appointment of dependents of employees r etired on health ground. It has been stated in the order that the petitioner was major at the time of retirement of his father and was living separately since 1 971. Be it stated here that the father of the petitioner had married for 2nd tim e and the petitioner along with his mother i.e. the first wife of the retired em ployee started living separately since 1971. It was in such circumstances, the a uthority of the bank observed in the impugned order that the petitioner could su rvive without the compassionate appointment. The impugned order also states that since the petitioner could survive along with his mother, the question of appoi ntment of the petitioner on compassionate ground did not arise.

10. Needless to say that compassionate appointment is not a source of recrui tment. Needless also to say that there cannot be any endless compassion. That ap art, a question may also arise as to whether there can be any consideration for appointment on compassionate ground where the employee takes pre-mature retireme nt on medical ground. The Division Bench of this Court in Afruja Sakia Yasmin Ah med Vs. District & Sessions Judge, Golaghat reported in 2008(4) GLT 140 has hel d that compassionate appointment cannot be on the ground other than death. The s aid judgement also refers to the Full Bench decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in (2001) 6 An LT 553 (Govt. of AP Vs. D. Gopaiah) in which it w as held that compassionate appointment on the ground of medical invalidation doe s not satisfy the requirement of Article 16. The said view of the Full Bench was approvingly quoted by the Apex Court in the judgement reported in (2007) 2 SCC 481 ( National Institute of Technology & ors. Vs. Niraj Kumar Singh). For all the aforesaid reasons, irrespective of the plea of the petitione 11. r that his case was not fairly considered by the bank, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and accordingly the writ petition is dismissed, without howeve r, any order as to costs.