High Court · 2006

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in spite of recommendations made by the 4th respondent recommending the candidature of petitioner’s son for compassionate appointment, the respondent-Bank failed to consider the case of the petitioner and the action of the respondent-Bank in rejecting her claim is illegal and arbitrary. He submits that even though it is stated in the impugned order that an amount of Rs.10,00,000/- was paid to the petitioner towards terminal benefits of her husband, she received only an amount of Rs.1.88 lakhs from the respondent-Bank. He further submits that in the case of other deceased employees, the respondent-Bank had not only paid more amounts towards terminal benefits than the amounts paid to the petitioner and provided family pension, but also provided appointment on compassionate grounds to one of the dependants of the deceased, and not providing employment to the son of the petitioner on compassionate grounds, is discriminatory. The respondents filed counter. The learned Standing Counsel for the respondents reiterating the counter averments submitted that pursuant to the death of her husband, the petitioner was paid an amount of Rs. 10.16 lakhs towards terminal benefits, and she is also drawing an amount of Rs.600/- per month towards defence family pension. He further submits that the respondent-Bank, pursuant to the orders of this Court passed in W.P. No.22022 of 2004, having considered the case of the petitioner and having found that she has sufficient means, and her family is not found to be in destitute, declined her request for appointment on compassionate grounds to her son, and there are no reasons to interfere with the same. He further submits that the respondent-Bank, after considering the case of each individual on its own merits, has provided compassionate appointment to some of the dependents of the employees, who died in harness and the rejection of the case of the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate grounds to her son, is on just and equitable grounds. He denied there is any discrimination, and prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and perused the material papers produced by the respondents. The main object of providing compassionate appointment to the family member of a deceased is to enable the family of the deceased to tide over the sudden crises that befalls on the death of the sole bread winner and grant of compassionate employment is not a matter of right. Providing of appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception to the normal rule of recruitment, and it depends upon the statutory framework. The apex Court in Shri Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and others1, has noted the objects of granting compassionate employment, and they are: I. (i) To enable the family to tide over the sudden crises by the death of the sole bread winner; (ii) To relieve the family of the financial destitution and to help to get over the emergency. The object is not to give a member of such family a post. II. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. III. The government or public authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and only if it is satisfied, but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. IV. The only ground, which can justify compassionate appointment, is the penurious financial condition of the family at the time of death of the employee. Offering employment irrespective of the financial condition of the family is legally impermissible. V. Consideration for compassionate employment is not a vested right to be exercised at any time in future. In the instant case, a perusal of the impugned order coupled with the counter-affidavit and the material papers produced by the respondent-Bank shows that the competent authority considered the financial condition of the family of the deceased in the light of the afore-mentioned judgment, and the case of the petitioner appointment of her son on compassionate grounds was declined on the grounds that she was paid a sum of Rs.10.00 lakhs towards terminal benefits of her husband, she is drawing defence family pension of Rs.600/- per month, and apart from her, the other dependant in her family is only her son aged 24 years. However, the petitioner relying on the proceedings issued by the Branch Manager of the respondent-Bank contended that she received only an amount of Rs.1.88 lakhs towards terminal benefits of her husband. But, the said proceedings do not show the exact amount paid by the respondent-Bank to the petitioner, and it only shows the details of the liabilities of the deceased at the time of his death to the Bank. Since, in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Bank, it is asserted that they paid an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs to the petitioner towards terminal benefits of her husband, the contention of the petitioner that she received only Rs.1.88 lakhs towards terminal benefits cannot be accepted. The next ground urged by the petitioner is that in the case of the other deceased employees, the respondent-Bank, though paid comparatively more amount towards terminal benefits and family pension the petitioner and provided appointment on compassionate grounds to one of the dependants of the deceased, the action of the respondents-Bank in not providing employment to her son on compassionate grounds, is discriminatory. In this regard, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent-Bank has produced copy of minutes issued by the respondent-Bank giving reasons for selection of 20 candidates on compassionate grounds. On a perusal of the same, it is clear that in all those cases the family members of the deceased are more in number apart from the wife and mother, and in almost all the cases, the children are school going children and in some cases there are more than two children, and in some other cases there are five to six children. In the instant case, the petitioner’s son is a major, and it cannot be said that he would not get employment. Hence, taking into consideration of those circumstances, the respondent-Bank has considered each individual case on its own merits and provided compassionate appointment to some persons. But, the case of the petitioner cannot be compared with those cases, for the reason that in the instant case, as is evidenced by the material produced by the respondents, the petitioner, after the death of her husband, was paid an amount of Rs.10.00 lakhs towards terminal benefits. Apart from that she is drawing an amount of Rs.600/- per month towards defence family pension. The quantum of amount received by the petitioner towards terminal benefits of her husband and the quantum of pension being received by her, clearly go to show that the petitioner is not suffering from any financial distress, and having regard to the quantum of amounts received, cannot be said to be not sufficient for the sustenance of the petitioner and her only son, who is aged about 24 years, and for whom the petitioner sought compassionate appointment. In that view of the matter, I see nothing wrong in the action of the respondent-Bank in rejecting the case of the petitioner for providing appointment to her son on compassionate grounds, more so when grant of compassionate appointment, is not a vested right, and is granted only to tide over the immediate financial crisis that befalls on the family on the death of the sole bread winner. The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs. _________________ N.V. RAMANA, J. Date: 1st September, 2006. Nsr 1 1994 (4) SCC 138