- (1.) BY means of the present writ petition, petitioner -Sanjay Kumar Singh sought following relieves: "(i) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari thereby quashing the impugned order dated 10.08.2007 passed by the opposite party no.2 as contained in Annexure -1 to this writ petition. (ii) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to consider and appoint the petitioner on suitable post under Dying -in -Harness Rules."
(2.) BRIEF Facts for deciding the present writ petition are that Dhani Ram Singh, the father of the petitioner -Sanjay Kumar Singh was appointed as Driver -cum -Messenger in the State Bank of India, Hazratganj Branch (hereinafter referred to as 'the Bank'). Dhani Ram Singh died -in -harness on 20.04.2001. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment after the death of his father in the Bank as Class -IV employee. There was a scheme of compassionate appointment known as "The Scheme For Appointment on Compassionate Grounds For Dependents Of Deceased/Employees Retired on Medical Ground" (hereinafter referred to as 'the Scheme'). The said scheme has been annexed as Annexure -3 to the writ petition. The Bank declined the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground vide order dated 22.12.2001. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred a Writ Petition No.3922 (S/S) of 2002 before this Court. The said writ petition was allowed vide order dated 05.05.2006 with a direction to the Bank to reconsider the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The order of this Court dated 05.05.2006 is quoted hereinbelow: "The petitioner is assailing the orders dated 26.11.2001 and 22.12.2001 passed on an application of the petitioner for appointment under compassionate ground for dependents of deceased employee/employees retired on medical ground. It has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner's father was appointed as Driver -cum -Messenger in the State Bank of India and while in service, his father expired on 20.04.2001 after serving more than 30 years. On 10.10.2001 the petitioner applied for appointment on the post of Messenger in the requisite format which was given by the Bank and in clause 6 of the said application form, the details of the family members who were dependent on the deceased were revealed. It has been specifically mentioned in the said application that the deceased left his wife, three sons, one unmarried daughter and one daughter -in -law. The petitioner's claim for appointment was rejected by a non -speaking order and being aggrieved thereof, the petitioner has preferred the instant writ petition interalia on the grounds that the order has been passed in mechanical manner without applying the mind as well as the financial condition of the family of the deceased. Learned counsel appearing for the Bank has stated that the main object of the scheme is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of bread earner, the mere death of an employee in harness does not entitled his family to such source of livelihood. The compassionate appointment is given to the dependents only when the bank is satisfied that the financial condition of the family of the deceased is such that the family of the deceased would not be able to meet the crisis. In the present case, the family of the deceased has been paid a sum of Rs.3.93 lac as terminal benefits and family pension of Rs.3,882/ - plus Rs.250/ -. Thus, the bank after coming to the conclusion that no indigent circumstances exist in the family of the deceased employee has rightly rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. Learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the citations of 'Subhash Chandra Yadav Versus State Bank of India and others [2005(1) LBESR 459 (All)]' contended that the payment of family pension and dues of the deceased could not be a good ground for refusing the claim for compassionate appointment. The respondents while rejecting the application for providing appointment failed to consider the entire factors including the size of the family. In 'State Bank of India Versus Ram Piyarey and others [(2001) 2 UPLBEC 1597]', a Division Bench of this Court, following the law laid down by Apex Court has held in paragraph 11 that the receipt of family pension cannot be taken to be a good ground for rejecting the case for appointment on compassionate ground. It is common knowledge that the widow is entitled to family pension and other benefits in the event her husband dies in harness. If the plea of the bank is accepted, then no appointment can be made on compassionate ground and the scheme of the Bank shall have no meaning. It is not in dispute that the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground has been amended from time to time and as per scheme the financial condition and the dues paid to the family are to be taken while making appointment on compassionate ground, but the impugned order dated 26th November, 2001/22nd December, 2001 does not specify as to whether the appointment has been refused after taking into consideration the entire financial condition of the family. The financial condition of the family is the primary factor for giving appointment on compassionate ground. While considering the appointment on compassionate ground, apart from pension, gratuity, fund and compensation, the competent authority is also required to take into account the size of the family and its liabilities together with income of family from other sources. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, I am of the considered opinion that the impugned order has been passed without considering the scheme formulated by the bank as also the law laid down by the Apex Court. No reasons have been assigned while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. It is not the case of the respondent that the petitioner is unqualified or is not eligible for appointment. In view of the above, the order dated 26th November, 2001/22nd December, 2001, as contained in Annexure -1, is hereby quashed. The opposite parties are directed to consider the claim of the petitioner afresh in the light of the observations made hereinabove together with the scheme of the bank and pass a speaking and reasoned order, expeditiously. With these observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed." The Bank in pursuance of the order passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.3922 (S/S) of 2002 reconsidered the claim of the petitioner and once again, the claim of the petitioner was declined vide order dated 10.08.2007 (Annexure -6 to the writ petition) passed by the opposite party no.2 -Chief General Manager, State Bank of India. While rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, the Bank held that the family pension (Basic + Dearness Allowance) is Rs.3882/ - and apart from it, a monthly relief of Rs.250/ - is also paid by the Bank under Mutual Welfare Scheme. It was also held that the terminal benefits to the tune of Rs.3,93,000/ - and the liabilities of the deceased was to the tune of Rs.2,35,000/ - and after deducting the liabilities, the figures comes to Rs.1,58,000/ - and interest thereon was calculated as Rs.1066/ - and as such the monthly income of the family comes to Rs.5198/ - though the last carry home salary of Dhani Ram Singh was of Rs.4081/ -. It was further observed in the impugned order that the deceased was having a wife and two married sons. The married sons supposed to be earning livelihood for their respective families. The authority thereafter taking into considering the judgement of the Hon'ble Apex Court in General Manager (D&PB), SBI Vs. Kunti Tewari and others, (2004) 7 SCC 271 and in Chief General Manager, SBI and others Versus Durgesh Kumar Tewari delivered in Civil Appeal No.996 of 2006 decided on 06.02.2006 and also keeping in view the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in State Bank of India Vs. Ram Piyare and others decided on 18.12.2003 dismissing the claim of the petitioner on compassionate appointment.
(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner Manju Gupta and learned counsel for the Bank.;