SANJEEV KUMAR SINHA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AS in both these writ petitions, the question involved is common, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) IN the first writ petition (C.W.J.C. No 13522 of 2000), the prayer is to quash the order dated 17 -8 -2000, contained in Annexure 9, passed by the Managing Director and Group Executive (National Banking), State Bank of India, Mumbai (respondent No 3), whereby the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground after the death of his father late Gopal Nandan Prasad Sinha in harness on 30th August, 1996 has been rejected and the second writ petition (C.W. J.C. No. 918 of 2001) is directed against the order as contained in Ref: PTC/SSW/4209/2000 -01/ HKV dated 16 -12 -2000 (Annexure -4), issued by the Divisional Manager, Canara Bank, Patna, informing the petitioner that the competent authority after examining his case has declined to give appointment in the Bank on compassionate ground as no indigent circumstances necessitating employment exists in his case and consequently the petitioner has sought for a direction to the respondent authorities to appoint him on compassionate ground after the death of his father late Sibbo Sharma in harness on 11 -12 -1999. By way of amendment I.A No. 783 of 2001 has also been filed in the second case challenging the validity of the order dated 14 -12 -2000, contained in (Annexure -5), issued by the Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank, Bangalore to the Assistant General, Manager, Canera Bank, Staff Section (Workmen), Circle Office, Patna whereby the competent authority has declined to consider employment to the petitioner or compassionate grounds.

(3.) IN both these writ petitions, counter -affidavits have been filed on behalf of the respective Banks in which more or less common plea has been taken that the object of the scheme is to enable the family to tide over the sudden financial crisis due to the death of the bread earner and that such appointments are not to be given merely on the death of the employees in harness. According to the respondents, the object is to offer such appointment keeping in view the financial condition of the family of the deceased and when the Bank is satisfied that the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family. In support of this, a reference to the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpalv. State ofHaryana (1995 LLJ (I) 798) has been made in the counter -affidavit filed in the second case.