ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (1.) HEARD Sri J.P. Singh, framed counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vivek Ratan, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents Bank.
(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner have prayed for quashing the orders dated 15.9.2003 and 16.10.2003 Annexures V and VI to the writ petition communicating the petitioner No. 2 that the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been accepted and the Bank has decided to give a lump sum amount of Rs. 3,09,000/ - in lieu thereof. A mandamus has also been sought directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner No. 1 for compassionate appointment in the light of earlier scheme regarding compassionate appointment. The facts of the case for deciding this writ petition briefly stated are: The father of petitioner No. 1 and husband of petitioner No. 2 late Sri Thakur Prasad Singh was serving as Arm guard in Union Bank of India, Branch Ahiraula district Azamgarh. The said Shri Singh an ex -army man, was engaged by the Bank as Security guard. Thakur Prasad Singh died on 10th of May, 2001 leaving behind the petitioners as well as two minor daughters and a minor son as dependants. An application for compassionate appointment was submitted on prescribed proforma praying for appointment of the petitioner No. 1 on compassionate appointment. Union Bank of India issued a staff circular dated 22.7.2003 intimating about the modified scheme for appointment of the dependent of deceased employee. New scheme having been approved by the Board of Directors in its meeting dated 30.5.2003. The new scheme further stipulated that the pending cases are to be disposed of as per modality approved by the Board. The revised scheme provided a scheme for lump sum financial relief. An income certificate obtained from the Tahsildar has also been annexed with the writ petition to the effect that the monthly income of the petitioners' family is Rs. 2100/ - per month. A communication letter dated 15.9.2003 was issued to the petitioner No. 2 that the application for compassionate appointment has not been approved and a lump sum amount of Rs. 3,09,000/ - has been granted to the petitioner. After the order the petitioner again represented to the Bank praying for his compassionate appointment.
(3.) SRI J.P. Singh learned Counsel for the petitioners challenging the decision of the Bank submitted that the petitioner No. 1 was fully entitled for compassionate appointment. He submits that the petitioner's father having died much before implementation of new scheme dated 30.5.2003, petitioner's case was liable to be considered on the basis of earlier scheme dated 17.2.1997 and new scheme was not required to be applied in petitioner's case. He further submits that while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment the Bank has relied on the terminal benefits consequent to the death of the petitioner's father which is not permissible. Reliance has been placed by the learned Counsel for the petitioners on two judgments of the apex Court namely, 2000 (3) E.S.C. 1618 (S.C.) Balbir Kaur and Anr., etc. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors.; (2005) 10 Supreme Court Cases 289 Govlnd Prakash Verma v. Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors. Reliance has also been placed on judgments of this Court reported in 2001 (2) E.S.C. (All.) 876 State Bank of India and Ors. v. Ram Plyarey; 2003 (2) E.S.C. (AII.)960 Smt. Padma Pathak v. Managing Director. Pubjab National Bank. New Delhi and Anr.; 2004 (4) E.S.C. (All.)2358 Chief General Manager, State Bank of India and Ors. v. Duraesh Kumar Tlwari; 2004 (3) E.S.C. (All.)1642 Ashutosh Mishra v. Union Bank of India and Ors. and a judgment of this Court reported in 2005 (1) E.S.C. (All.) 134 Mritunjay Mishra v. Chief General Manager, State Bank of India. Lucknow and Anr.;