- (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel and perused the record.
(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed with the prayer to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 13.2.2005 passed by respondent no.3 (annexure 5 to the writ petition) Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Personnel & H.R.D. Section, Main Branch, Kanpur rejecting the application dated 11.2.2005 and 18.2.2005 for appointment of the petitioner under dying- in-harness rule. The brief fact of the present case is that father of the petitioner no.1 and husband of the petitioner no.2 late Laxmi Shanker Tripathi was working as Godown keeper as class 4th employee with the Bank of respondent no.3. He died in harness on 2.11.2004. Thereafter, an application was made by the petitioner no.2, wife of late Laxmi Shanker Tripathi on 17.11.2004, which was address to respondent no.3, Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Personal and H.R.D. Section, Main Branch, Kanpur for appointment of the petitioner no.1 under the dying- in-harness rule. Late Laxmi Shanker Tripathi expired while he was in service leaving behind his wife petitioner no.2, his son petitioner no.1 and other children Km. Sushma aged about 20 years and Km. Kusma aged about 21 years and applicant no.1. There is another son of the petitioner no.2 and late Laxmi Shanker Tripathi namely Sanjay Tripathi, who has discontinued his education after class VIII. Hence the prayer was to give appointment in the bank on compassionate ground to applicant no.1 according to his qualification. The petitioner no.1 is graduate in arts from Chhatrapati Sahuji Maharaj, Kanpur University and at that time he was preparing for M.B.A. examination. When there was no decision on that application then another application dated 11.2.2005 was sent seeking compassionate appointment. Thereafter reminder was issued on 13.6.2005 and 17.6.2005. Subsequently, by a cryptic and non speaking order dated 13.12.2005, respondent no.3 informed that requisition of the petitioner for payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount was not found correct by the competent authority as per government norms.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submitted that when father of the petitioner no.1 expired in the year 2004 an application was given on 17.11.2004 at that time scheme dated 1.1.1979 was applicable, which was amended from time to time for appointment on compassionate ground. There was no request for payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount on the basis of subsequent scheme dated 4.8.2005. Hence the impugned order, which is non speaking order, is liable to be set aside. He relied the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2007(9)SCC 571, State Bank of India and other Vs. Jaspal Kaur.;