Dinesh Maheshwari, J. - (1.) BY way of this Special Appeal, the petitioner -appellant seeks to question the order dated 15th September 2008 as passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 6671/2008, whereby the learned Single Judge of this Court declined to grant relief to the appellant on his claim for compassionate appointment and his challenge to the validity of Clause (a) of paragraph 7 of the Scheme for Recruitment of Dependents of Deceased Employees on Compassionate Grounds {'the Scheme' hereinafter} as adopted by the respondent -UCO Bank.
(2.) THE provisions contained in the aforesaid Clause (a) of paragraph 7 of the Scheme prescribe that the dependents of the employees who die after attaining the age of 55 years are not eligible for compassionate appointment/payment of lump sum. The learned Single Judge considered the fact situation of the present case where the petitioner -appellant, a person in about 34 years of age, was claiming appointment on compassionate grounds, as being the son of late Shri Brij Lal, an employee of the respondent Bank, who died on 17th June 1998. The learned Single Judge, while pointing out that appointments on compassionate grounds are deviation from general principle of equality and such appointments are given in extra ordinary circumstances, in case of death of sole bread -earner of the family, observed that the circumstances as existing at the time of death of the employee could not be considered subsisting after about a decade; and found no case for granting relief, even if the aforesaid Clause (a) of paragraph 7 of the Scheme was treated non -existent.
(3.) SEEKING to assail the order aforesaid, the learned Counsel would strenuously contend that the appellant has been denied compassionate appointment on entirely irrelevant considerations and without having regard to the facts that immediately after the demise of Shri Brij Lal, mother of the appellant made an application for granting appointment on compassionate basis to the appellant; that the appellant could not be penalized for the delay that was attributable only to the respondents; and that the petitioner -appellant had been regularly pressing for his claim for compassionate appointment and this Court, in the earlier writ petition filed by the appellant (CWP No. 5664/2004) did issue directions to the respondents to consider his representation. It is submitted that after the directions of this Court in the said writ petition, the claim of the petitioner -appellant was rejected only with reference to the offending Clause (a) of paragraph 7 of the Scheme wherein, without any reason or rationale, compassionate appointment is denied to the dependents of the employees who die after attaining the age of 55 years. According to the learned Counsel, the said clause has no logic and rather defeats the very purpose of the Scheme, which is essentially meant for providing support to the family in distress. Learned Counsel yet further submitted that the respondents had been unfair and unreasonable in rejecting the claim of the appellant for compassionate appointment and even not making payment of lump sum while ignoring the circumstances of the family and the fact that the petitioner -appellant's father died before adopting of the said Scheme by the respondent -Bank.;