Arijit Banerjee - (1.) The petitioner No. 1 is the wife and the petitioner No. 2 is the son of a deceased employee of the respondent bank. They have challenged an order of the respondent bank rejecting the prayer for giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner No. 2. Although, another order of the bank rejecting the prayer of the petitioners for ex gratia payment has also been challenged in the writ petition, the same was not pressed. At the very outset, I enquired from learned counsel for the respondents as to whether the respondents would like to file an affidavit-in-opposition. Learned counsel submitted that the facts are not disputed and, hence, no affidavit need be filed. Accordingly, I took up this writ petition for final disposal.
(2.) The employee concerned namely, Late Chandra Sekhar Sarkar joined the bank in 1987. He died-in-harness on 1st April, 2011. He was the sole bread earner of the family. His son was a student. His wife had the option of applying for compassionate appointment or alternatively ex gratia payment. It was submitted on behalf of the petitioners that in view of the financial crisis faced by the family of the deceased, the petitioner No. 1 applied for ex gratia payment. Such application was made within the prescribed time period. Since, such application was kept pending for a long time, in February, 2014 the petitioner No. 2 made an application in the prescribed format for compassionate appointment. The application for ex gratia payment was rejected by the respondent bank by a Memo dated 1st August, 2014. The application for compassionate appointment was rejected by the bank by a Memo dated 30th September, 2014. As aforestated, these two memos are under challenge in the present writ application. However, the challenge to the Memo dated 1st August, 2014 has not been pressed.
(3.) The impugned memo rejecting the petitioners' prayer for compassionate appointment reads as follows:- JUDGEMENT_82_LAWS(CAL)4_2019_1.html ;