GARG, J. - (1.) THE petitioner has filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on 5. 3. 2003 against the respondent with a prayer that the respondent be directed to consider the case of the petitioner to give appointment to him on compassionate ground on the post of clerk or any other post.
(2.) THE facts of the case as put forward by the petitioner are as under: i) That father of the petitioner late Shri Balwant Singh died on 25. 9. 1998 and at the time of death, deceased was in service of respondent - Bank and he was regular employee of the bank since 1979 and when he died, he was working on the post of Branch Manager at Marwar Gramin Bank, Harji Branch. ii) It was further submitted by the petitioner that he is graduate and is fully qualified for appointment in the respondent - Bank on compassionate ground. iii) Further case of the petitioner is that after death of his father, he submitted an application dtd. 5. 10. 1998 (Annex. 1) for seeking appointment on compassionate ground and his mother Smt. Geeta Chauhan through application dtd. 5. 10. 1998 (Annex. 2) recommended the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. iv) Further case of the petitioner is that after receiving application (Annex. 1 and 2), through letter dtd. 8. 12. 1998 (Annex. 3), the respondent - Bank sought some informations from the mother of the petitioner which were supplied by his mother through letter dtd. 15. 12. 1998 (Annex. 4 ). THE mother of the petitioner gave information that at the time of death of her husband, the petitioner was her only son and there were two daughters, but she herself was working as Teacher at Sirohi in the pay scale of Rs. 5300/- etc. Apart from that, information about the property and liability was also supplied. v) On receiving the letter dtd. 15. 12. 1998 (Annex. 4), the respondent - Bank through letter dtd. 10. 7. 99 (Annex. 5) addressed to the mother of the petitioner, refused to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground stating that since she was in Government service and looking to the liability as furnished by her, it was not possible for the respondent to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. vi) Further case of the petitioner is that thereafter through letter dtd. 2. 8. 99 (Annex. 6), the mother of the petitioner made further request for giving appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground, but the respondent - Bank vide letter dtd. 17. 8. 99 (Annex. 7) replied to the mother of the petitioner that it was not possible to give appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. Hence, this writ petition with the abovementioned prayer. Reply was filed by the respondent - Bank and it has been submitted that payment in respect of gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund etc. have been made and apart from that family pension had also been sanctioned to the widow Smt. Geeta Chauhan. It was further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that Rules of the Bank did not permit in the facts and circumstances of the case to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner especially when mother of the petitioner (widow of the deceased) was already in Government servant getting regular monthly pay of Rs. 5300/- and hence no case was made out and the writ petition be dismissed. Heard There is no dispute on the point that after death of father of the petitioner, the petitioner through application dtd. 5. 10. 98 (Annex. 1) sought appointment on compassionate ground in the respondent - bank and his mother also supported the case of the petitioner through application dtd. 5. 10. 1998 (Annex. 2 ). There is also no dispute on the point that mother of the petitioner was already in service as teacher.
(3.) FOR convenience, Point No. X of Scheme for Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Employees on Compassionate Grounds in Regional Rural Bank is quoted hereunder: x) In case a widow, son or daughter is already in employment whether in the Bank or elsewhere, the Bank may, at its discretion, consider giving employment to another son or daughter after taking into account the individual circumstances of each case i. e. the income of the member of the family already employed, the size of the family, the assets and liabilities of the family and other relevant considerations. " Now the question which arises for consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the present case just mentioned above, appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground was rightly refused by the respondent - Bank or not? Before proceeding further, legal aspect with respect to for what purpose compassionate appointments are made and what is the object behind them may be seen. For that, the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sushma Gosain & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. (1), Smt. Phoolwati vs. Union of India & Ors. (2), Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana & Ors. (3), Jagdish Prasad vs. State of Bihar (4), State of Bihar vs. Samsuz Zoha (5), Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation vs. Dinesh Kumar (6), Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd. vs. A. Radhiki Thirumalai (7), Haryana State Electricity Board vs. Naresh Tanwar & Anr. (8), Haryana State Electricity Board & Anr. vs. Hakim Singh (9), Director of Education (Secondary) & Anr. vs. Pushpendra Kumar & Ors. (10), Cochin Cock Labour Board vs. Leemama Samuel & Ors. (11), U. P. R. T. C. vs. Pukhraj Singh & Ors. (12), and Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. P. Pochaiah & Anr. (13), may be referred to. ;