Sunil Ambwani, J. - (1.) The petitioner's father late Shri Munna Lal Khanna was serving as Daftary in Union Bank of India (in short the Bank), Station Road Branch, Mirzapur. He expired on 26.11.1996, while on duty. Smt. Sheela Khanna, the widow of the deceased employee made a representation to the Bank on 3.12.1996, nominating her son the petitioner, Rajeev Kumar Khanna for appointment under the scheme of appointment on compassionate grounds. In thes representation, she clearly staled that she is unable to join the service of the Bank for the reasons of her illness. The Deputy Manager of the Bank informed her vide letter dated 31.12.1997 that the request of Sri Rajeev Khanna for compassionate appointment has been declined by the competent authority. Smt. Sheela Khanna once again made a request to the General Manager (Personnel) of the Bank for appointment of her son on compassionate grounds. In this undated application she gave the details of the service benefits received by her husband and admitted that she has received a total amount of Rs. 2, 72, 614.34 towards gratuity, provident fund, DRF fund, Family Welfare Scheme, Group Insurance, Leave Encashment and is receiving Rs. 3200/- as pension from the Bank. She, however, stated that her daughter got married at Lucknow, in which she had spent Rs. 3,20,000/-. She had taken Rs. 20,000/- as loan after which the family condition of the family has deteriorated. She sent reminders on 22.3.2001 and 6.6.2001. The Bank again by the communication dated 11.1.2002 to the petitioner turned down the request. The Senior Manager informed the petitioner that the compassionate appointment is granted to the dependants of the deceased employee to enable the family to tide over sudden crisis. Such an appointment cannot be claimed after the crisis is over. The Bank regretted its ability to consider his request and advised the petitioner not to enter into any further correspondence on the subject in future. On 8.4.2002 the petitioner's mother Smt. Sheela Khanna received a letter from the Chief Managej (Karmik) of the Bank in response to her letter to Special Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of India dated 5.2.2002. stating that the compassionate appointment is given only when family is in a state of poverty and has no source of income. Since the monthly income of the family is sufficient, the competent authority had rejected her application. He further stated in the reply, that the compassionate appointment is offered only to tide over immediate financial crisis and once the crisis is over, the claim cannot be entertained.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the entire approach of the Bank is erroneous. The petitioner was pursuing his request for compassionate appointment since 1997. The request must be considered with reference to the amounts received by the heirs of the deceased employee. He submits that the amounts like gratuity, provident fund have no relevance in determining the question of compassionate appointment, and in any case the liabilities in the present case were more than the amount received by the family. The family pension given to the widow is too meagre to support the family. He submits that the family is still reeling in financial crisis and that the Bank committed patent illegality in rejecting petitioner's application.
(3.) Sri Piyush Bhargava, learned counsel for respondent Bank has relied upon the Scheme of compassionate appointments/reliefs to dependants of the deceased employee/employees seeking premature retirement on medical grounds dated 22.7.2003 annexed as Annexure No. 2 to the counter affidavit of Sri Anil Kumar, Chief Manager of the respondent Bank. He submits that mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle one of his family member to an appointment in the Bank. The respondent Bank has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee. He submits that Clause-4 of the Circular No. 4341 dated 19.2.1997 had clarified that the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. In such case the appointment is offered 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, Jn considering such appointment the competent authority will take into account the service benefits received by the family of the deceased employee. Such appointments are purely on humanitarian considerations and no appointment can be claimed as a matter of right. The Scheme has undergone modification vide Circular No. 4989 dated 22.7.2003. Under this modified Scheme now the family of the deceased employee may either be given compassionate appointment to an eligible and dependent family member, or a lump sum financial relief. The method of awarding financial relief is provided in Para-II of Annexure No. 1 to the scheme. In this method the total amounts received by the dependants of the family, and the pension is calculated, and where it falls short with 60% of the last drawn salary (net of tax) of deceased then the difference of amount of 60% of the last drawn salary (net of tax) of the deceased employee is calculated towards the minimum lump sum financial relief to set of the loss of income. In order to have uniform and equitable yardstick the minimum and maximum amount under this method for officers, clerical and sub staff has been worked out.;