Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
(2.) The case of the petitioner, in a short compass, is that the father of the petitioner died in harness in 2002 while serving as Head Cashier in the State Bank of India, Kuraoli, District Mainpuri. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which has been rejected by the competent authority of the respondent-Bank on the ground that the family was not in indigent circumstance and has sufficient means to sustain.
(3.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Balbir Kaur and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. (2003) 3 U.P.L.B.E.C. 2055, in support of his contention that compassionate appointment can be granted even if the family of the deceased - has received benefit of Family Benefit Scheme. He has also relied upon the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana and Ors. (1994) 4 S.C.C. 138.;