Krishna Kumar vs A.G.M., State Bank of India and Another

Tarun Agarwala, J.—The Petitioner''s father was working as a Messenger in State Bank of India and died-in-harness on 28.3.2000. An application was moved for appointment of the Petitioner in bank on compassionate ground which was declined by the competent authority vide its order dated 8.1.2002. This order has been challenged in the present writ petition and the Petitioner has prayed not only for quashing of this order but also for a direction commanding the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner under the Dying-in-Harness Rules.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties.

The application for appointment of the Petitioner on compassionate ground has been rejected on the ground that the financial condition of the family could not be termed as penurious in view of the terminal benefits, investments, savings, family pension and monthly relief from Staff Mutual Welfare Scheme.

The Respondents have filed the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground. The object of the scheme is quoted hereunder:

The object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-winner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such a livelihood. The object is to offer compassionate appointment only when the bank is satisfied that the financial condition of the family is such that, but for the provision of employment the family will not be able to meet the crisis.

Clauses 3 (l) and (m) of the scheme are quoted herein:

(l) Financial condition of the family.-Appointments in the public services are made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. However, exceptions are made in favour of dependents of employees dying-in-harness and leaving their family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Determining the financial condition of the family is, therefore, an important criterion for deciding the proposals for compassionate appointment. The following factors should be taken into account for determining the financial condition of the family:

(i) family pension,

(ii) gratuity amount received,

(iii) employee''s/employer''s contribution to Provident Fund,

(iv) any compensation paid by the bank or its welfare fund,

(v) proceeds of L.I.C. Policies and other investments of the deceased employee,

(vi) income of family from other sources,

(vii) income of other family members from employment, or otherwise,

(viii) size of the family and liabilities, if any.

(m) Deviations.-(i) Deviations from the provisions of the scheme may be considered by the Managing Director and Group executive or by prior approval of the Government.

From a perusal of the aforesaid it is clear that the object for appointing dependants on compassionate ground is to tide over the sudden crisis due to death of the bread winner. The bank is required to give appointment on compassionate ground only, if it is satisfied that the financial condition of the family is such that, but for the provision of employment, the family could not be able to meet the crisis. The criteria for determining the financial conditions have been given in Clause (l) of the scheme.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that on the basis of the information supplied by the Petitioner, as disclosed in Annexure-5 to the counter-affidavit, the monthly income of the family members was Rs. 9,656 which was adequate and, therefore, the financial condition of the family was not penurious and the Petitioner was, therefore, not entitled for appointment.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the widow of the deceased received 3.73 lacs toward terminal benefits by way of provident fund, gratuity and leave encashment, etc. and that she was also receiving a family pension of Rs. 2,559 and that the other income of the remaining family members, who were employed came to Rs. 4,100 plus interest from terminal benefits would amount to sufficient income and, therefore, there was no requirement to appoint the Petitioner on compassionate ground. In support of his case, the Respondent has relied upon a decision in Special Appeal No. 447 of 1999, Jadawati Devi v. State Bank of India and Ors. decided on 27.7.1999, in which it was held that the financial condition of the family was not in such a distress condition to give employment to a member of the family of the deceased under the Dying-in-Harness Rules. The conclusion drawn was on the basis of the amount received from the provident fund, gratuity and pension etc. In Writ Petition No. 34547 of 2000, Pushpendra Arora v. State Bank of India and Ors. decided on 9.8.2000, this Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the financial position of the family of the deceased employee was sound and that no ground was made out for appointment on compassionate ground.

The claim of the Petitioner has been denied on the basis of the income disclosed by him in his application for appointment, which has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the counter-affidavit. From a perusal of the said application it is clear that the total income shown includes the income of three brothers which comes to Rs. 4,100. The application shows that the three brothers are working as labourers. In my opinion, the income of the brothers who are married and who are not staying with the family as alleged by the Petitioner in the rejoinder-affidavit, could not be included while calculating the financial income of the family. So far as the income of the widow is concerned, the income received from the family pension and interest from terminal benefits cannot be included. Thus, if these amounts are removed from the total income shown, nothing would remain nor can anyone come to the conclusion that the financial position of the family members was sound. In State Bank of India and others Vs. Ram Piyarey, , a Division Bench of this Court held:

In our opinion, the learned single Judge was correct in holding that the receipt of family pension by the widow and a sum of Rs. 1.42 lacs paid to widow after deducting the loan cannot be taken to be a good ground for rejecting the case for appointment on compassionate ground. It is common knowledge that the widow is entitled to family pension and other benefits in the event her husband died in harness. If the plea of the bank is accepted then no appointment can be made on compassionate ground and the scheme of the bank shall have no meaning. We are of the view that the learned single Judge was quite justified in allowing the writ petition.

The judgment in Ram Piyarey case (supra), was decided on 17.4.2001, whereas the judgment passed in Jadawati case was decided on 27.7.1991. Since Ram Piyarey judgment is the latest judgment, the same is binding upon me.

In view of the aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 8.1.2002 is set aside. The Respondents are directed to reconsider the Petitioner''s application for appointment on compassionate ground in the light of the observations made above and after considering the financial hardship, the authority concerned shall pass appropriate order in accordance with law within two months from the date of the communication of this order.