DEVI PRASAD SINGH,J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties and perused the records. Writ petition has been preferred against the impugned order passed by the respondents declining to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in view of alleged fact that the petitioner's family is in financially sound position. The petitioner's father was a cashier cum clerk working in the State Bank of India Akbarpur Branch. He died in harness on 30.09.1990. Thereafter petitioner had moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground. By the impugned order petitioner's application has been rejected. While rejecting the application a finding has been recorded that terminal benefit paid to the petitioner in lieu of death of his father which is Rs. 0.15 lac (Rs. Fifteen thousand). The petitioner is drawing family pension of Rs. 1877/- per month and an amount of Rs. 250/- per month under Bank's Mutual Welfare Scheme.
(2.) IT has been submitted by the petitioner's counsel that petitioner is aged about 23 years and two other brothers who were minor and now aged about 18 and 19 years. The petitioner's grand mother is aged about 80 years and on account of old age heavy amount is invested to provide her medical aid. The further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that even family pension which has been recommended by the respondents to the tune of Rs. 1877/- per month shall continue only up to the year 2011 and thereafter respondent Bank will stop the payment of pension. In consequence thereof even assuming that assessment made by the respondents is correct but Rs. 3661/- per month shall not be sufficient to meet out the requirement of four persons which includes old lady of almost 80 years of age. While rejecting the petitioner's claim the respondent had relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138, Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and others. Relevant portion from the judgment of Umesh Kumar Nagpal relied upon by the respondents Bank is reproduced as under:- "a. The object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis caused by the death of the sole bread winner, and to relieve the family of the financial destitution and to help it get over the emergency. (b) Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. (c) The Government or public authority has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and only if it is satisfied that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. (d) The only ground which can justify compassionate appointments is the penurious condition of the deceased's family. Offering employment irrespective of the financial condition of the family is legally impermissible."
(3.) IT has been stated by respondents counsel that aforesaid proposition of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Nagpal(supra) has been applied by the respondent's Bank.;