SUNIL AMBWANI, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri Raj Karan Yadav for petitioner and Sri A. K. Misra for State Bank of India.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this writ petition are that petitioner's husband Late Sri K. K. Jauhari was working as Senior Assistant in Shyamganj Branch of State Bank of India. He died in harness on 4.4.2001, seven and half years before his superannuation, leaving behind petitioner as his widow, two daughters and two sons. Both the daughters were married before his death. Petitioner made an application on 8.8.2001 for compassionate appointment to her son Mona deep Mona. The application was recommended by the Branch Manager. It was, however, dismissed by the Chief General Manager, Local Head Office, Lucknow. The order was communicated to petitioner by the Branch Manager of the Bank on 6.6.2002. In the counter -affidavit, the respondents have relied upon a scheme for appointment on compassionate ground which provides that where the retirement benefits and family pension given to the dependents of the deceased employee are sufficient to take care of the financial need, compassionate appointment shall not be offered. It is submitted that petitioner received Rs. 7.61 lacs as terminal benefits and is receiving family pension of Rs. 6,703 (including basic Rs. 3,574 and Dearness Allowance Rs. 3,129). It was found that taking into account the interest at 9% over the terminal benefits and other assets of Rs. 1.43 lacs, excluding the liability disclosed by the petitioner of Rs. 2.25 lacs, after deduction of tax on interest, will get net monthly interest, of Rs. 11,718 p.m. to the family, from all sources. In the circumstances it was found that petitioner shall not face such financial hardships which may entitle compassionate appointment to her son.
(3.) COUNSEL for petitioner has relied upon the judgment of this Court in Dhiraj Kumar Dixit v. General Manager (Personal), U.C.O. Bank, Calcutta, (2003) 1 UPLBEC 20. In this case this Court considered the scheme, and found that the scheme virtually defeats the object and purpose of compassionate appointment and while declaring Clauses 7 and 8 of the scheme of recruitment of dependent of deceased employee on compassionate ground, as arbitrary and irrational, quashed the order directing respondent to consider her representation afresh.;