S.N. Srivastava, J. - (1.) Petitioner, the son of deceased employee of State Bank of India has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon. Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashment of the impugned communication dated 27.8.2002 and for a writ of mandamus for appointment on compassionate ground.
(2.) Brief facts as are necessary for adjudication of the disputation in the present petition are that Sri Hans Nath Tiwari a regular employee of State Bank of India died in harness on 31.1.1997 and at the time of his death he was serving as clerk-cum-cashier in the State Bank of India Belthera Road Branch, Ballia. The mother of the Petitioner sought compassionate appointment but the same met with disapproval of the bank authorities and by means of communication dated 25.5.1999, the prayer was declined with cryptic order that indigent circumstances do not exist. Para 2 of the order enumerated resources and the fund, which the family was possessed of. The family was stated to be recipient of the following amount in the wake of the death of the sole breadwinner: Provident fund- Rs. 1.96 lacs; gratuity - Rs. 1.08 lacs and lump sum relief - Rs. 0.20 lacs paid under Staff Mutual Welfare Scheme; family pension Rs. 3,421 and monthly relief- Rs. 500 under Staff Mutual Welfare Scheme, movable assets valued at Rs. 0.30 lacs and immovable property valued at Rs. 3.00 lacs, agricultural land of 4 bighas yielding income of Rs. 5,000 per annum, interest income of Rs. 3,000 per month from investments and terminal dues claim of Life Insurance Corporation of India Policy of Rs. 50,000 paid to the family and invested in term deposit with the bank. The Bank authority seemed to have assessed sufficiency of resources on the basis of above and converged to the conclusion that the family did not suffer from scantiness of resources. Aggrieved, the Petitioner instituted Writ Petition No. 30406 of 2000. This Court, while allowing the writ petition issued direction to the Respondent authorities to reconsider the application of the Petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in view of the observations embodied in the said judgment dated 9.4.2002. Again, the compassionate appointment was declines to the Petitioner and it is in this backdrop that the Petitioner has preferred the instant petition.
(3.) In the instant petition, the Petitioner has repudiated the contention stating that picture drawn by the bank authorities as to the income has been magnified beyond all proportions and it has been spelt out that the lump sum amount of Rs. 1.83 lacs has been enumerated by the bank without discrediting the liability towards bank loan. It was further submitted that the family pension has suffered diminution and has been rescheduled to Rs. 450 per month on the basis of basic pay with effect from 1.2.2002. On the other hand, the learned Counsel appearing for the bank strenuously repudiated the claim of the Petitioner to his claim to appointment on compassionate ground. However, he did not repudiate the factum of reduced pension and other contentions pertaining to income of the deceased family nor did he state in justification of the figures unfolded in its order by the bank authorities. He placed coupious reliance on various authorities both of this Court and the Apex Court. The cases cited in vindication of his hand are the decision in Special Appeal No. 575 of 2000 delivered by a Division Bench of this Court on 26.3.2003, decision rendered by a Division Bench of Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 11781 of 2002, single Judge decision in W.P. No. 7222 of 2002 dated 19.12.2002, single Judge decision in Manoj Kumar Tiwari v. State of U.P. reported in (2002)2 ESC ESC (All) 5 (2002 All LJ 1276) . Division Bench decision of this Court in Anand Kumar v. Union of India reported in (2002) 2 ESC 27 (All) : 2002 All LJ 678 : 2002 Lab IC 1512 .;