- (1.) RESPONDENTS -appellants, aggrieved by an order dated 14.5.2009 passed in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 32127 of 2007, have preferred this Appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952.
(2.) SHORN of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present Appeal are that the husband of writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 was an employee of Baroda Eastern Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank. Her husband died on 25.9.2004 and she filed application for appointment on compassionate ground on 26.10.2004. Her case for appointment was considered in terms of the policy dated 6.12.2006 and accordingly by order dated 12.4.2007, the Regional Manager, Baroda Eastern Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank rejected her prayer for appointment on compassionate ground. Writ-petitioner Respondent No.1 challenged the aforesaid order inter alia contending that her case for appointment on compassionate ground was not fit to be considered in accordance with the new scheme which had come into force on 6.12.2006, but in accordance with the scheme which existed at the time of filing of the application for appointment on compassionate ground. It was also averred that the dependants of deceased employees who filed applications latter than writ petitioner-respondent No.1, were considered and granted compassionate appointment and that the case of respondent No.1 was not considered purposely for a pretty long time and it was dealt with nearly more than 2 years after the filing of the application in the light of the scheme dated 6.12.2006, to defeat her claim.
(3.) BOTH the submissions found favour with the learned Single Judge and the appellants have been directed to offer compassionate appointment to writ petitioner-respondent No. 1 and so long as it is not done, not to make fresh appointments on ministerial posts. While doing so, the learned Single Judge observed as follows: "In view of the discussions made above, this Court is of the view that the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment ought to have been processed and dealt with in accordance with the old scheme which was prevalent before 6.12.2006. The petitioner has been discriminated purposefully while the other similarly circumstanced persons have been given compassionate appointment." ;