PRADIP SINGH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Pradip Singh, one of the appellants, preferred the writ petition under the scheme of Art. 226 of the Constitution of India with the chronological events that the appellant no. 1's father, who was a Group-D staff of the respondent State Bank of India, had died on 13th Jan., 2006. The appellants applied for compassionate appointment on 7th Sept., 2006 which was not taken into consideration.

(2.) Then the appellants preferred the first writ petition, being W.P. 8408(W) of 2007 on 10th Sept., 2007 relying on a decision of National Confederation of Bank Employees for compassionate appointment. Subsequently, the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground was issued by the concerned bank authorities on 7th Aug., 2014. On the basis of that scheme, the appellants made a demand of justice on 8th July, 2015 by further submission of representation for appointment on compassionate ground. The said writ petition was dismissed by learned Single Judge.

(3.) By the impugned order dated 17th Feb., 2016, passed in W.P. 2501(W) of 2016, the Writ Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners had cited a wrong scheme seeking appointment on compassionate ground and they can no longer be entitled to seek such appointment under the said scheme. The State Bank of India, the respondent herein, had placed a scheme for compassionate appointment in exceptional circumstances and exgratia lumpsum payment in other cases. On behalf of the petitioners, a decision reported in (2014) 7 SCC 413 was referred to the Court in order to fortify their contention wherein the Supreme Court observed that an appointment on compassionate grounds must be given at the earliest or the entire purpose of granting an appointment on compassionate ground is lost.