Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - (1.) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India claiming the following reliefs :- "1. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and the order dated 22.02.2016 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the respondents may kindly be directed to accord appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground. 2. Any other appropriate order, as deemed fit in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner."
(2.) Brief facts of this case, as noticed by this Court are that earlier a writ petition bearing S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.6595/2011 was preferred by the petitioner, and after hearing both the parties, the same was allowed vide order dated 04.04.2014, and the said order was affirmed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 29.09.2015 in D.B.Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.764/2014 (State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur & Ors. Vs. Rishi Baghari). The respondents were accordingly required to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for providing appointment, as per the policy which was in existence on the date of death of the petitioner's father within a period of three months.
(3.) The aforementioned order dated 04.04.2014 passed by the coordinate Bench of this Court reads as follows :- "Heard learned counsel for the parties. Instant writ petitioner has been filed by the son of Late Hanuman Singh Bhagari who died while in service of respondent Bank in an account on 30.10.2005 for direction to the respondent to provide appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner being son of Late Hanuman Singh Baghari filed an application to provide appointment on compassionate ground but the application of the petitioner was rejected vide communication dated 15.09.2006 by the respondent Bank stating therein that as per the existing scheme, appointment on compassionate ground is not permissible. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date on which the petitioner's father died, a different scheme was in existence, under that scheme the petitioner is very much entitled for appointment on compassionate ground but while taking shelter of subsequent scheme framed by the respondent Bank after the date of death on 20.12.2005, it is informed to the petitioner's mother that no appointment can be given as per the new scheme framed on 20th December, 2005. As per argument of petitioner, the denial of appointment on the basis of subsequent policy is not tenable in law because the policy which was in existence on the date of death of petitioner's father is to be taken into consideration for providing appointment on compassionate ground, therefore, the respondents may kindly be directed to decide the petitioner's application for providing appointment as per the existing policy prevailing prior to 20.12.2005. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that petitioner is not entitled for appointment because policy which was in existence on the date of death of petitioner's father was subsequently amended and in the new policy framed on 20.12.2005, it was specifically provided that at the time of death of an employee, only ex gratia benefit will be extended to the family of the deceased employe and no appointment will be given on compassionate ground. Further it is submitted that in the year 201 in supercession of all above policies, another circular was issued in which it is decided by the Bank to provide appointment in exceptional cases on compassionate ground, therefore, the denial of appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground is perfectly justified and in consonance with the policy framed by the respondent-Bank. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the pleading so also the circulars placed on record by the Bank alongwith the reply. Admittedly, father of the petitioner died in an accident occurred on 31.10.2005. An application was moved by the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground but application of the petitioner for providing appointment on compassionate ground is rejected solely on the ground that a new policy framed in the month of December, 2005 and it is decided by the Bank to pay ex gratia benefits to the family of employee who died while in service, therefore, meaning thereby, the denial of consideration for appointment is not sustainable in law because it is the duty of employer to provide relief to the family of employee who died while in service, therefore, the scheme in existence on the date of death should have been considered for appointment, therefore, denial of appointment to the petitioner is not based upon valid reasons, more so the denial of appointment is contrary to the basic principle of law because the day on which petitioner's father died, there was provision in the existing policy to provide appointment on compassionate ground. In view of the above, this writ petition is allowed. The communication (Annex.7) is hereby quashed and set aside with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner afresh for providing appointment as per the policy which was in existence on the date of death of petitioner's father, within three moths from the date of receiving certified copy of this order and pass order.";