Ashok Bhushan, J. - (1.) Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Sri K. D. Grover, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ramesh Singh. The petitioner's father was an employee of Punjab National Bank. He died on 20th April, 1997 leaving behind his widow Smt. Madhuri Shukla and two sons namely, Kaushal Kumar Shukla and Sharwan Kumar Shukla. Petitioner made an application to the respondents for his appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner was considered by the Bank and the Bank vied its letter dated 23rd June, 1998 communicated that the petitioner was not found entitled to be given appointment on compassionate ground in place of his deceased father Ravi Shanker Shukla. The order dated 23rd June, 1998 has been filed as Annexure-I to the counter-affidavit. The order dated 23rd June, 1998 refers and relies on the amount of family pension payable/terminal dues paid, after the death of Sri Ravi Shanker Shukla. The petitioner's Counsel has referred to various clauses in the Scheme which has been circulated vied letter dated 20th March, 1997. The relevant scheme governing the procedure for giving appointment on compassionate ground has been filed as Annexure-4 to the counter-affidavit. At page 5 of the said Scheme in the heading "Financial Condition of the Family" reference to certain relevant grounds made while considering the case of appointment on compassionate ground. The relevant portion of the said Scheme is extracted below : "The dependants 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. (d) Any compensation paid by the bank or 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." The petitioner's Counsel has also referred to the object of the scheme as mentioned in paragraph 2 of the Scheme which is extracted below : "The object of the Scheme is to consider compassionate employment to the dependant 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 dependants 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 defendant, the family will not be able to meet the crisis it faces at the time of death of the employee."
(2.) From bare perusal of its object it is clear that the scheme contemplates that mere death of an employee in harness would not, however, entitle his dependants 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 dependant, the family will not be able to meet the crisis it faces at the time of death of the said employee, Paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit mentions that the family of Sri Ravi Shanker Shukla is being paid the family pension of Rs. 3,191/- p.m. besides the terminal dues paid to them in terms of rule. The relevant portion of paragraph 4 of the counter-affidavit is being reproduced : "The family of Shri R.K. Shukla is also being paid family pension of Rs. 3,191/- per month besides the terminal dues paid to them in terms of rules. The competent authority after having considered the above facts and circumstances, in terms of the provisions of the Scheme, decided to decline the request of Smt. Madhuri Shukla for employment on com- passionate grounds of the petitioner in the Bank service."
(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that mere payment of terminal benefit including the pension is not substitute for giving employment on compassionate ground. In all service law the provisions are made for making payment of terminal benefit and on that ground no one can be deprived on his right of employment on compassionate ground. There is no denying to the fact that mere payment of terminal benefit including the benefit in consequence to the death of an employee are not sufficient for denying the employment on compassionate ground in deserving case. Even if terminal benefits are paid to the family of deceased employee the employment can be given but that differs from case to Case. In certain case there is no entitlement of payment of pension. Certainly in the cases where the wife or other dependants are not getting pension will be a good factor in favour of the dependant to claim appointment on compassionate ground. In the present case, it is admitted fact, that the family pension of an amount of Rs. 3,191 per month is being paid to the petitioner and that payment will continue, according to the petitioner, till 2004 and even thereafter the lesser payment will be continued to the widow. This was the relevant circumstance which has been considered by the Bank while denying the claim of compassionate appointment. I do not find any error or infirmity in the decision taken by the Bank. The Bank decision cannot be said to be irrelevant as per scheme applicable in the petitioner's case. Petitioners' Counsel has placed reliance on a judgment reported in 2000 (3) ESC 1618 (SC), Balbir Kaur and Anr. v. Authority of India Ltd., and Ors.. In the aforesaid case before the Apex Court family, benefit scheme was introduced under 1989 Tripartite Agreement. According to the Scheme in case the widow deposited provident fund amount and gratuity due with the Company's separate trust she will be continued to pay salary to which the deceased employee was entitled. It was contended by the respondent before the Apex Court that in view of the family benefit scheme, the entitlement of compassionate appointment came to an end. The aforesaid submission was not accepted by the Apex Court and in that context the Apex Court observed that family benefit scheme cannot be in any way equated with benefit of compassionate appointment. In the present case it is not contended by the Bank, that compassionate appointment is not permissible to the employee who received pension or other terminal benefits. Every case has to be judged according to its own facts. In compassionate appointment in the Punjab National Bank is governed by the Scheme which has been filed as Annexure - IV to the counter-affidavit. In the present case the decision of the Bank has to be tested in accordance with the conditions and criteria was laid down in the Scheme applicable with the Bank. Thus, the Apex Court's judgment relied by the petitioner has no application on the facts of this case.;