Krishna Murari - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE writ petition is directed against the order dated 7.5.1999, passed by the respondent-Bank rejecting the application of the petitioner claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. A further relief of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner on a Class IV post and pay consequential benefits alongwith arrears has also been claimed. Undisputed facts are that the father of the petitioner, who was a Class IV employee working as a security guard with the respondent-Bank died-in-harness on 8.6.1998 leaving behind his wife and four daughters including the petitioner. An application was filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on a Class IV post on compassionate ground. All other legal heirs are stated to have given their no objection on affidavit for appointment of the petitioner. Vide letter dated 7.5.1999, respondent No. 2, the Branch Manager informed the petitioner that the competent authority has rejected the application of the petitioner. The order passed by the competent authority has been brought on record by the respondent-Bank in its counter-affidavit as Annexure-CA1. A perusal of the order goes to show that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that since a sum of Rs. 3.12 lacs has been paid as terminal benefits towards provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment etc. and a sum of Rs. 2,875 was liable to be paid as family pension and the three elder daughters being married and the size of the family being very small, the circumstances do not warrant compassionate appointment, inasmuch as there was sufficient funds available with the family of the deceased to maintain themselves. The Bank has framed a scheme for appointment of the dependants of the deceased employees known as Scheme for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds for dependants of deceased employees/employees retired on medical grounds, which came into effect from 1st of January, 1979 and has been modified from time to time. The scheme updated on 1.1.1998, prevailing at the time when compassionate appointment was claimed by the petitioner, contains a stipulation that the compassionate appointment was to be offered only when the Bank was satisfied that the financial condition of the family was such, that but for the provisions of employment, the family would not be able to meet the crisis and in making assessment of the financial condition of the family, the following factors are prescribed to be taken into consideration : (i) Family Pension. (ii) Gratuity amount received. (iii) Employee's Employer's contribution to Provident Fund. (iv) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its Welfare Fund. (v) Proceeds of L.I.C. policies and other investments of the deceased employee. (vi) Income of family from other sources. (vii) Income of other family members from employment or otherwise. (viii) Size of the family and liabilities, if any.
(3.) IT has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the provision of family pension and other terminal benefits received by the family after death of the employee cannot be taken to be a good ground for rejecting the appointment on compassionate ground, inasmuch as in every case the terminal benefits are received by the family and in most of the cases, widow is entitled to family pension, and as such, no appointment on compassionate ground can ever be made and the scheme of the Bank will have no meaning. In support of the contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of State Bank of India and others v. Ram Piyarey Adult, 2001 (2) ESC (All) 876 : 2001 (2) AWC 1508.;