- (1.) TARUN Agarwala, J. The petitioner's father was working as a Messenger in State Bank of India and died in harness on 28-3- 2000. An application was moved for appointment of the petitioner bank on compassionate ground which was declined by the competent authority vide its order dated 8-1-2002. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition and the petitioner has prayed not only for quashing of this order but also for a direction commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner under the Dying-in- Harness Rules. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE application for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that the financial condition of the family could not be termed as penurious in view of the terminal benefits, investments, savings, family pension and monthly relief from Staff Mutual Welfare Scheme. The respondents have filed the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground. The object of the scheme is quoted hereunder:- "the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-winner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such a livelihood. The object is to offer compassionate appointment only when the Bank is satisfied that the financial condition of the family is such that, but for the provision of employment the family will not be able to meet the crisis. " Clauses 3 (l) and (m) of the Scheme are quoted herein- " (l) Financial condition of the family.-Appointments in the public services are made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. However. exceptions are made in favour of dependents of employees dying in harness and leaving their family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Determining the financial condition of the family is, therefore, an important criterion for deciding the proposals for compassionate appointment. The following factors should be taken into account of determining the financial condition of the family: (i) family pension. (ii) gratuity amount received. (iii) employee's/employer's contribution to Provident Fund. (iv) any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare fund. (v) proceeds of LIC Policies and other investments of the deceased employee, (vi) income of family from other sources. (vii) income of other family members from employment, or otherwise. (viii) size of the family and liabilities, if any. (m) Deviations.- (i) Deviations from the provisions of the scheme may be considered by the Managing Director and Group executive or by prior approval of the Government. From a perusal of the aforesaid it is clear that the object for appointing dependants on compassionate ground is to tide over the sudden crisis due to death of the bread winner. The bank is required to give appointment on compassionate ground only, if it is satisfied that the financial condition of the family is such that, but for the provision of employment, the family could not be able to meet the crisis. The criteria for determining the financial conditions have been given in Clause (l) of the Scheme.
(3.) THE learned counsel for the respondents submitted that on the basis of the information supplied by the petitioner, as disclosed in Annexure 5 to the counter affidavit, the monthly income of the family members was Rs. 9656/-which was adequate and, therefore, the financial condition of the family was not penurious and the petitioner was, therefore, not entitled for appointment. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the widow of the deceased received 3. 73 lacs toward terminal benefits by way of provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment etc. and that she was also receiving a family pension of Rs. 2,559 and that the other income of the remaining family members, who were employed came to Rs. 4,100 plus interest from terminal benefits would amount to sufficient income and, therefore, there was no, requirement to appointment the petitioner on compassionate ground. In support of his case, the respondent has relied upon a decision in Jadawati Devi v. State Bank of India and others, decided on 27-7-1999, in Special Appeal No. 447 of 1999 [since reported in 2000 (1) LBESR 250 (All), in which it was held that the financial condition of the family was not in such a distress condition to give employment to a member of the family of the deceased under the Dying in Harness Rules. The conclusion drawn was on the basis of the amount received from the provident fund, gratuity and pension etc. In Pushpendra Arora v. State Bank of India and others, decided on 9-8-2000, in Writ Petition No. 34547 of 2000, this Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the financial position of the family of the deceased employee was sound and that no ground was made out for appointment on compassionate ground.;