- (1.) This special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 25.04.2014 passed in Writ Petition No.2770 (S/S) of 2002 and judgment and order dated 27.10.2015 passed in Review Petition Defective No.101 of 2015 whereby the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment in place of his mother was dismissed.
(2.) The appellant has claimed compassionate appointment in place of his mother, who was working as Class-IV employee in the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Branch Hazratganj, Nawal Kisore Road, Lucknow (hereinafter referred to as 'Bank') who died in-harness on 08.12.1995 leaving behind her two minor children, namely, Manish Kumar, appellant aged about 12 years and Km. Jyoti, her younger sister at the time of her death. The father of the appellant had already expired on 13.10.1990 much earlier to the death of late Smt. Jayanti, mother of the appellant. The appellant along with his sister had been brought up under the guardianship of their maternal grandfather. The appellant, after attaining the age of majority, moved an application on 30.08.2001 seeking for compassionate appointment.
(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant argued that action of the bank in turning down the claim of the appellant was totally against Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Though the compassionate appointment was not a right but for minimum requirement of human life, the appointment of the appellant was very much required in the facts and circumstances of the case. The fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India guaranteeing the right to life and live with dignity neither can be diluted nor circumvented by the scheme or statutory provision. The appellant was hardly 12 years of age and his mother who was sole bread earner of the family died and admittedly when he became major after 5 years, just after attaining the age of 18 years, he applied for appointment on the compassionate ground. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the order was passed by the respondent-bank without considering the relevant facts about the size of the appellant's family/employment status of his family members and sources of their income, liabilities and expenses and the decision of the bank rejecting the case of the appellant for compassionate appointment is arbitrary. It was submitted that the case of the appellant ought to have been considered in the light of the Scheme 'Dying in Harness Scheme' which was then in vogue and the action of the bank is just contrary to the justice, equity and good conscience and is liable to be set aside .;