SUNIL AMBWANI, J. - (1.) THE writ petition has been restored to its original number. I have heard Counsel for petitioner and Sri V.R. Agarwal for respondents.
(2.) PETITIONER is seeking compassionate appointment in Bank oh the death of his father late Sri Himmat Ram Arya, who died in harness on 27.9.1998. From the pleadings I find that petitioner's mother had received Rs. 1,48,097/ - as retrial dues. A loan of Rs. 1,37,426/ - was taken for construction of house. It is contended that the land was purchased but the house could not be constructed. Three daughters of the deceased employee have since married and that now the family has three member including petitioner, his mother and an unmarried sister. Alongwith counter -affidavit the respondents have annexed a letter received by the Records Officer, Mahar Regiment Abhilekh Karyalaya Records, Mahar Regiment Saugor (MP) dated 10.7.2002 sent to Union Bank of India, Adarsh Mandi Sthal Branch Pilibhit Road, Bareiliy, by which the Army authority have informed the bank that petitioner's mother is also entitled to family pension from the Army. Her husband had rendered service in the Army. A family pension claim form was sent to the petitioner's mother on 17.5.1999 but she did not pursue the matter. This document shows that petitioner's mother has an addition and subsisting right to receive family pension from the Army. I have considered the submissions carefully. Counsel for respondents has relief upon the Division Bench decisions of this Court in Om Prakash Ram and Anr. v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 23351 of 2003 decided on 23.5.2003, Jadwati Devi and Ors. v. State Bank of India in Special Appeal No. 447 of 1999 decided on 27.7.1999 and Anand Kumar v. Union of India and Ors. : 2002 (93) FLR 477 (Alld.), as was well as decisions of learned Single Judge in Anurag Yadav v. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Lucknow and Ors. in Writ Petition No. 5659 of 2000 decided on 1.4.2002. and Kishore Singh v. S.B.I. Kanpur : 2000 (85) FLR 854 (Alld.). In these decisions the Division Benches have denied compassionate appointment whore the financial condition of the dependents, did not justify any such appointments.
(3.) THERE is series of decisions of Apex Court which gives ample guidelines in these matter. An extract from the decision given in Om Praksh Ram and Anr. v. Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad and Ors. is quoted as below: In Sushma Cosain v. Union of India and Ors. : 1989 (59) FLR 626 (SC), the Apex Court held as under: It can be stated unequivocally that in all claims for appointment on compassionate ground, there should not be any dealy in appointment. The purpose of providing appointment on compassionate ground is to mitigate the hardship due to death of the bread -earner in the family. Such appointment should, therefore, be provided immediately to redeem the family in distress. It is improper to keep such case pending for years. If there is no suitable post for appointment supernumerary post should be created to accommodate the applicant. ;