- (1.) The petitioner claims appointment on compassionate grounds. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by respondent No. 2 .i.e State Bank of India by order dated 12.01.2006 which has been communicated to the petitioner through letter No. R-1 Staff/8453 dated 19.01.2006. He claims a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the petitioner against a post commensurate to his educational qualifications.
(2.) We may briefly notice the facts leading to the claim made by the petitioner.
(3.) The father of the petitioner was appointed as Guard in the establishment of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. He died in harness at the age of 50 years on 26.03.2001 while working as Head Guard in the Board of respondent No. 3 i.e. Assistant General Manger, State Bank of India, Region -1, Zonal Office, Haryana, Panchkula (Haryana). On 28.01.2002 the petitioner sent a representation to the respondents for appointment on compassionate grounds. He claims that the deceased i.e. his father is survived by his widow, two sons and one daughter. The sons had to abandon the study after the death of their father because of financial crisis. The widow of the deceased was given monthly pension of Rs. 2,858/-. The request of the petitioner was declined by respondent No. 2 by order dated 28.01.2002, a non-speaking order. The petitioner filed C.W.P. No. 7503 of 2002 challenging the aforesaid order. The writ petition was allowed by order dated 05.12.2002 by passing the following order: The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds on the plea that his father who was a Head Guard in the Bank has died on 25.3.2002 while in the service of Bank leaving the family in penury. Appointment to the petitioner was denied by order Annexure P-2 dated 7.7.2002. Although the aforesaid order given no reasons for declining the petitioner's request but in the reply it has been pleaded that the family was not in distress as they were drawing family pension and interest on the other monetary benefit released to the family. Details have been given in paragraph 3 of the reply. We find, however, that the case is covered in favour of the petitioner by the judgment of this Court in C.W.P. No. 5326 of 2002 titled Naveen Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.decided on 25.8.2003 and C.W.P. No. 12552 of 2001 titled Sukhdev Singh v. Union of India and Ors.decided on 9.9.2003, wherein it has been held that while assessing the income of the family of the deceased; family pension is not to be counted towards the income of the family so as to deny appointment to a member of the family. We accordingly, following the judgments aforesaid quash the order Annexure P-2 and direct the respondents to reconsider the matter in the light of the observations made in those judgments within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the order. No order as to costs. Dasti. Sd/-H.S. Bedi, JudgeSd/- Kiran Anand Lall, Judge;