- (1.) HON'ble VYAS, J. By way of filing the present writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for quashing the order dated 5. 3. 2004 (Annexure-4) and prayed that a direction may be issued to the respondents to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground from the date when the dependents of other deceased employees of the respondent Bank were provided appointment.
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the father of the petitioner late Abdul Aziz Bhati was working as clerk-cum-cashier in State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur. He expired on 1. 5. 2003 while in service due to heart failure. The petitioner has placed on record the death certificate as Annexure-1. Late Abdul Aziz left behind him his wife Shahida and three other children including the petitioner. After his death, it became very difficult for the family members of deceased to survive, therefore, an application was moved by the petitioner being elder son of deceased employee for providing appointment on compassionate ground. The said application was filed by him in proper performa along with required documents within time prescribed for filing such application from the date of death. The petitioner is possessing senior higher secondary qualification. Other family members including wife of late Abdul Aziz also gave their consent to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. As per the facts of the case, the family of the deceased Bank employee was allowed pension of Rs. 3669/- per month and amount was released under the head of gratuity, P. F. and other welfare funds amounting to Rs. 2,63,415/- but the same was adjusted towards the bank loans taken by the father of the petitioner. Further, it is stated by the petitioner that the amount of Rs. 14,158 was transferred to the Bank account of his mother and amount of Rs. 1,71,274/- received under the Heads of L. I. C. , was paid to the deceased family of late Abdul Aziz. The contention of the petitioner is that amount received under the Head of L. I. C. was also paid towards the other personal loans taken from the relatives and neighbours and affidavit was also filed along with application for providing appointment on compassionate ground. Therefore, as per the petitioner's contention, the family of deceased Abdul Aziz in which the petitioner is also one of the member is getting only pension of Rs. 3669/-, which is not sufficient for surviving their livelihood. Therefore, the petitioner made several requests for providing appointment on compassionate ground as per the policy laid down by the respondent-Bank. In support of contention of adjustment of the amount of retiral benefits, the petitioner has placed on record Annexure-3 dated 17. 7. 2003. The application filed by the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the respondents vide letter dated 5. 3. 2004 on the ground that the amount received under the Head of terminal benefits and family pension is sufficient for the maintenance of the family of the deceased. Therefore, it is observed that the terminal benefits have also been paid, therefore, as per the scheme of the Bank, the petitioner is not entitled for providing compassionate appointment.
(3.) AFTER rejection of the application, representations dated 25. 3. 2004 and 14. 12. 2004 were filed by the petitioner in which it was specifically mentioned that the terminal benefits paid to the family have already been adjusted towards loan amount, therefore, the denial of appointment is totally illegal but it has come to the knowledge of the petitioner that as many as 18 dependents of deceased employees working in the various Branches of the respondent Bank were providing appointment on compassionate ground in between the period from April, 2004 to March, 2005, therefore, the petitioner's case was to be considered at part with those persons who were provided appointment on compassionate ground but on illegal grounds, the rightful claim of the petitioner has been rejected, therefore, as per the petitioner, denial of the appointment on compassionate ground is arbitrary, illegal and in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that as per the scheme of the Bank although the assessment is required to be made by the respondents for the purpose of ascertaining actual resources for maintenance of the deceased family but in case of the petitioners all the norms have been ignored and only on the basis of the fact that certain amount of terminal benefits were paid to the family of the deceased employee and family is getting pension of Rs. 3669/-, which is sufficient for maintenance but in fact the respondent Bank was under obligation to consider the fact that terminal benefits so paid has already been adjusted against the loan taken by the deceased employee during his service tenure but all these facts were ignored and petitioner's family is still living in hardship and it is not possible for the family of the deceased employee to face financial crisis, therefore, the denial of appointment is totally illegal and have no foundation to stand before eye of law, therefore, the impugned order dated 5. 3. 2004 may be quashed and the respondents may be directed to provide appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground while considering his case at par with those 18 dependents of the deceased Bank employees who were provided appointment on compassionate ground in between the period commencing from 4. 4. 2004 to 1. 3. 2005. By way of filing reply, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the case of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment was considered within the four corners of the Scheme so framed by the respondent Bank for considering cases of compassionate appointment. The case of the petitioner was rightly considered by the respondents in which the respondent Bank found that there is sufficient means for the family to survive and while considering the case of the petitioner. It was taken into consideration the fact that terminal benefits were paid to the family of the deceased employee, so also, an amount of Rs. 3669/- towards the pension has been sanctioned, which is sufficient for survival of the family of the deceased employee, therefore, the main purpose for providing appointment on compassionate ground is to see whether the family of the deceased employee is having sufficient means to survive or not, therefore, after consideration when it is found that there are means including terminal benefits and pension amount for survival of the family. Therefore, after due consideration, the application of the petitioner for providing compassionate appointment was rejected. ;