Mohinder Pal, J. - (1.) HUSBAND of Laxmi Devi (petitioner No. 1) and father of Pawan Singh Lamba (petitioner No. 2), namely, Surat Singh Lamba was working as Gunman (Guard) in the Central Bank of India, Charkhi Dadri Branch, District Bhiwani (respondent No. 4) since May 15, 1984. Unfortunately, Surat Singh Lamba died in harness on July 14, 2001. After his death, as Laxmi Devi (petitioner No. l) was suffering from Asthma, she requested the respondent -Bank to give appointment to her son Pawan Singh Lamba (petitioner No. 2), who is B.A. Application dated July 31, 2001 (Annexure P -2) was submitted by her in this regard to the Regional Manager, Regional Office, Central Bank of India, Model Town, Jawahar Market, Rohtak (respondent No. 3). On receipt of application (Annexure P -2), respondent No. 3 directed petitioner No. 1 to give details of her other children and also the source of income of the family etc. Petitioner No. 1 then made fresh application dated August 27, 2001 (Annexure P -3) and furnished details as required by respondent No. 3. Thereafter, the petitioners kept on making constant inquiries from the respondent -Bank about the fate of their request and, ultimately, letter dated March 11, 2003 (Annexure P -5) was sent by respondent No. 2 to respondent No. 4 conveying that the Central Office had shown its inability to consider compassionate appointment case of petitioner No. 2 and the petitioners be informed accordingly. For rejecting the case of compassionate appointment of respondent No. 2, the following reasons were cited in the letter Annexure P -5: From the information submitted it has been observed that financial condition of the family is adequate, therefore, as per Government/IBA guide -lines, we are unable to consider for appointment of Shri Pawan Singh. Please inform the applicant suitably
(2.) AGGRIEVED from this order, the petitioners approached this Court by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No. 17357 of 2003. In that case, the respondent -Bank filed written statement taking the stand that the petitioners were regularly getting a pension of Rs. 2,700/ - per month and they had also received Rs. 1.68 lacs as retiral benefits. Civil Writ Petition No. 17357 of 2003 was allowed vide judgment dated August 09, 2005 (Annexure P -6) by passing the following order: We have carefully gone through the file and find that the respondents have not considered the implication of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank v. Ashwani Kumar Taneja, 2004 (4) R.S.J. 111 (S.C.). We are also of the opinion that some of the figures with regard to the income etc. are improbable and exaggerated. We accordingly allow the writ petition and quash the order dated 11.3.2003, Annexure P -5, with a direction to the respondents to take a fresh look in the matter in the light of the judgment aforesaid and also to take a realistic view with regard to the income of the family from various sources. The final decision in the matter shall be taken within two months from the date a certified copy of the order is supplied to them. The petitioners once again approached the respondent -bank through representation dated August 29, 2005. However, the claim of the petitioners was rejected vide order dated October 29, 2005 (Annexure P -7).
(3.) IN this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature, of certiorari, thereby quashing the order dated October 29, 2005 (Annexure P -7) and for issuance of a direction to the respondent -Bank to offer appointment to petitioner No. 2 Pawan Singh Lamba on compassionate ground with immediate effect. It has been averred in the writ petition that the action of the respondent -Bank in not giving appointment to petitioner No. 2 is not only contrary to the policy decision taken by the Bank, but also arbitrary. On the one hand, the Bank rejected the claim of the petitioners on the ground that financial position of the petitioners is not bad, but on the other hand, the Bank has granted appointment to the dependant of one R.P. Khanna, who died after the death of Surat Singh Lamba, husband of petitioner No. l and father of petitioner No. 2. It has been pleaded that the family of R.P.Khanna got about Rs. 10 lacs as gratuity, provident fund and other benefits and his widow was granted family pension of Rs. 8,000/ - per month. Besides, the family of R.P. Khanna owned a Bungalow in Model Town, Rohtak, and a number of plots. However, in case of petitioner No. l, who was drawing a family pension of Rs. 2,700/ - per month, the benefit of compassionate appointment has been declined by adopting the double yardstick.;