ANIL KUMAR YADAV Vs. UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS
LAWS(ALL)-2003-11-266
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on November 25,2003

ANIL KUMAR YADAV Appellant
VERSUS
UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Sunil Ambwani, J. - (1.) Heard Counsel for petitioner and Sri Vivek Ratan, Counsel for Union Bank of India.
(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this writ petition are that petitioner's father late Bhagwan Singh Yadav was employed as Deputy Branch Manager in the Bank. He died in harness on 6.12.2001 leaving behind his wife Smt. Urmila Yadav, two sons including petitioner had one unmarried daughter Km. Rupali Yadav. Petitioner applied for compassionate appointment on 2.1.2002 under the scheme of compassionate appointment of the Bank. Petitioner is B. Com. His application was supported by a 'no objection certificate' from his mother. The application was rejected by the Chief Manager (Personnel) of the Bank on 27.12.2002, on the ground, that the family is not in any such condition which can be termed as 'financial distress.'
(3.) In the counter affidavit of Sri N. Balakrishan, Assistant Manager (Personnel), Union Bank of India, Regional Office, Kanpur, it is stated that the scheme for compassionate appointment was floated by Staff Circular No. 4341 dated 19.2.1997, after it was approved by the Board of Directors of the Bank, in pursuance of the observations made by Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State Bank of Haryana and others . The Bank was also required to consider the directive of the Central Government and Ministry of Finance Indian Banks' Association. The death of employee in harness, does not entitle one of his family member to an appointment, unless the family is in a crisis and this has to be determined taking into account the financial condition of the family, including the family pension, gratuity, employees/employees contribution to the provident fund, any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund, proceeds of LIC Policy and other investments income from other sources, employment of other family members, and size of family and liabilities. It is stated in paragraph 12 that in the present case, petitioner's family is receiving family pension of Rs. 5,788/- and, besides, the family has received Rs. 5,82,237/- by way of net terminal dues and if the amount is properly invested, the family will receive a monthly interest of Rs. 3,639/-. The family as such has an income of about Rs. 9,427/- per month and looking to this size of the family and its responsibilities, it is not in such financial distress or hardship that an employment be given to one of its family members.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.