Rajes Kumar, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Sub-Inspector on 1.8.2005.
(2.) IT is the contention of the petitioner that he moved the application for the compassionate appointment in the year 2001. When the compassionate appointment has not been given, the petitioner filed Writ Petition No. 29068 of 2003, which has been disposed of by the order dated 8.4.2004 directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for the post of Sub- Inspector on compassionate ground. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner has been appointed on 1.8.2005. The contention of the petitioner is that the law relating to the pension, which was available when the petitioner moved the application for compassionate appointment and not the law available on the date of the appointment is applicable. In this regard, the petitioner has filed the representation, which has been rejected by the order dated 5.5.2011. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that on account of the delay on the part of the respondents in giving the compassionate appointment, it may not prejudice the right of the petitioner and the petitioner is entitled for the benefit of the pension scheme, which was available on the date of filing of the application.
(3.) IN support of the contention, he placed reliance on decision of this Court in Special Appeal No. 954 of 2009, Baroda Eastern Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank and another v. Smt. Vijay Laxmi Srivastva and another, decided on 14.7.2009, wherein while dealing with the case of the compassionate appointment, it has been observed that had her application be considered within a reasonable time, the scheme which came in to force on 6.12.2006 would not have come in her way. The bank on account of its inaction and delay in disposal of the claim of respondent No. 1 cannot bring about any such situation so as to deny the benefit of compassionate appointment. Further reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and others v. Jaspal Kaur, AIR 2007 SC (Supp) 414, wherein it has been held that the dispute arose in the year 2000 cannot be decided on the basis of a scheme that came into place much after the dispute arose, in the year 2005.;