S.N.SRIVASTAVA, J. - (1.) SRI Uma Shanker Mishra, a regular employee of State Bank of India, Ballia City Branch, having died in harness on 19 -5 -2001, the widow represented the matter to the Bank authorities for compassionate appointment of her son, namely, the petitioner on the ground that the deceased was survived by two sons and four unmarried daughters, all school going and the family of the deceased was ill -equipped to fend for itself. The petitioner being the eldest son and also being equipped with necessary qualifications of having passed his B.Sc. examination from V.B.S. Purvanchal University, Jaunpur, was put forth for compassionate appointment by means of representation dated 25 -5 -2001. The representation travelled though haltingly upto the end of respondent No. 1 who was then holding the office of Chief General Manager, Local Headquarter Hazratganj, Lucknow where the matter was considered and the request for compassionate appointment was ultimately turned down by a cryptic order the substance of which is that considering the cumulative/aggregate amount which the family had received in the wake of the death of deceased employee complete with pension, the financial condition of the family cannot be termed as penurious and request/proposal for compassionate appointment was accordingly rejected by the competent authority. It is in the above backdrop that the present petition has been preferred for the relief of a writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 26 -8 -2002 and also for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to offer appointment to the petitioner under Dying in Harness Rules on compassionate grounds.
(2.) THE learned counsel appearing for the petitioner took us through the impugned order and canvassed that the authorities concerned have not reckoned with the liabilities left behind by the deceased employee in passing the impugned order and also that the impugned order bristled with error in computation of income of the family. He further submitted that at the time of death, the deceased employee was drawing an aggregate salary of Rs. 18,072 and after his death, a meagre amount of Rs. 3415/ -has been fixed as pension payable to the family that too for a period upto 20 -5 -2006. He further submitted that the amount sanctioned to the family as pension is payable only for five years and thereafter, it would stand slashed to a paltry amount of Rs. 565 only. The learned counsel also drew attention of the Court to the facet that the deceased is survived by six children out of whom four are school going unmarried daughters and the youngest male child in the family is Ashutosh aged about 7 years and that the competent authority has not reckoned with the aspect how the family would be able to fend for itself after 20 -5 -2006. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents contended that the details enumerated in the impugned order are self -explanatory and reveal that family of the deceased employee had received enough amount which constituted sufficient means. According to the learned counsel, the Bank has assessed the cumulative income of deceased family from all sources to the extent of Rs. 10,051.00 per month after taking into reckoning each and every aspect, which by no means could be said to be insufficient or inadequate to keep the pot of the family boiling. The learned counsel for the respondents laid much emphasis on a recent decision of the apex Court in Punjab National Bank and others v. Ashwini Kumar Taneja,2004(2) LBESR 1028 (SC) : JT 2004(6) SC 418, to prop up his submissions and contended that a similar question was involved and the apex Court discountenanced the view taken by the Single Judge and thereafter by Division Bench of the High Court. This decision has been cited by the learned counsel as a sheet anchor of his arguments. I have been take through this decision. It would appear from a perusal of the said decision that learned Single Judge of High Court directed the Bank accordingly holding that the receipt of retiral benefit cannot be made a ground for rejecting the request for compassionate employment. The Division Bench also endorsed the said decision of the learned Single Judge. The apex Court held that financial condition of the family is a factor to be considered in the matter of employment on compassionate grounds as provided in the scheme of the Bank. There is no quarrel with the contention that financial condition of the family has to be reckoned with but the moot point is whether the manner in which the Bank has made assessment of the income of the deceased family from all sources, could be said to be justifiable, sound and valid one.
(3.) THE ratio that flows from the said decision is that the retiral benefits payable/paid to the family of the deceased cannot be eschewed from consideration in assessing the fiscal condition of the family. The question now that survives for consideration whether considering the liabilities of the family, the income is adequate and comes within the periphery of the expression 'sufficient means' and (2) whether the assessment of income by the Bank was correctly made?;