Punjab National Bank And Ors vs Ram Kumari Devi

This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 30.01.2017, by which the writ petition filed by the respondent Ram Kumari Devi has been allowed.

The respondent approached this Court by filing the writ petition inter alia challenging the order dated 26.6.2004 by which the application seeking compassionate appointment of her sonNarendra Singh has been rejected.

The facts of the case are that the late husband of the respondent Madan Lal was working as a Clerk with the Punjab National Bank. He was appointed with the said bank in the year 1985. He died while in service on 9.6.2003. The respondent who was wife of the deceased employees submitted an application seeking appointment of her son Narendra Singh on compassionate grounds on 11.7.2003. The appellant rejected his application by order dated 26.6.2004 inter alia on the ground that the respondent having received the terminal dues, the amount of LIC and income from the agriculture land and residing in her own residential house, cannot be said to be in the condition of penury and therefore compassionate appointment cannot be given to her son. The learned Single Judge discussing various judgements has held that compassionate appointment has to be considered by the bank in accordance with the scheme, but the financial status cannot be computed on the basis of retiral benefits received by the family of the deceased employee. Reliance was placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Canara Bank & Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar-(2015) 7 SCC 412, wherein it was held that the appellant-bank was not justified in taking the view that the application for compassionate appointment to the respondent cannot be considered in view of the passage of time. The Supreme Court also held that the retiral benefits or terminal benefits have no consequences in consideration of the application for compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge also noted that as per the own showing of the department, the respondents namely had a loan of Rs.2,69,698/-, which was deducted out of the total amount received by the widow as terminal benefits. As regards the various judgements cited on behalf of the bank, the learned Single Judge observed that the latest judgment of Supreme Court in Canara Bank, supra categorically held that the family of the deceased employee was getting family pension and also obtained the terminal benefits, was of no consequence in considering the application for compassionate appointment.

Shri N.K. Maloo, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant-bank has in assailing the judgement of the learned Single Judge and submitted that the view taken by the learned Single Judge was contrary to para 10 of the scheme of the appellant-bank, according to which the object of the scheme is to consider compassionate employment to the dependent of an employee dying in harness leaving his family without any means of livelihood keeping in view the family pension, amount of gratuity, PF Welfare Fund, LIC policy and income from other sources. The view taken by the learned Single Judge was contrary to the settled proposition of law. The ratio of the judgement of the Canera Bank, supra cannot be applied to the facts of the present case. The application was submitted on 11.7.2003, at that time the scheme published on 16.7.1997 was enforced. However, the scheme of compassionate appointment was abolished on 7.1.2005 and a new scheme regarding payment of ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment was notified. The appointment on compassionate ground could not be therefore directed to be given.

Shri N.K. Maloo, learned senior counsel in support of his arguments has relied on the judgements of Supreme Court in State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Somvir Singh-(2007) 4 SCC 778, State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Jaspal Kaur-(2007) 9 SCC 571, Union Bank of India & Ors. vs. M.T. Latheesh-(2006) 7 SCC 350, State Bank of India & Anr. vs. Raj Kumar-(2010) 11 SCC 661, Union of India & Anr. vs. Shashank Goswami & Anr.-(2012) 11 SCC 307, Mumtaz Yunus Mulani (Smt.) vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.-(2008) 11 SCC 384, State Bank of India & Ors. vs. Surya Narain Tripathi-(2014) 15 SCC 739 and State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. vs. Pankaj Kumar Vishnoi-(2013) 11 SCC 178. Learned senior counsel in support of his arguments also relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Subhadra vs. Ministry of Coal & Anr.-(2018) 11 SCC 201.

Shri Deepak Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent has opposed the appeal and submitted that the learned Single Judge has rightly relied on the judgement of Supreme Court in Canara Bank, supra, wherein it has been held that granting of terminal benefits is of no consequence in giving appointment on compassionate ground to the person eligible in the family of deceased who died while in service to protect the family from the sudden death of the sole earning member and to carve out the family from harness and vacuum created in the family. Learned Single Judge thoroughly considered the scheme of the appellant, clause 10 of the scheme, facts and circumstances of the present case, various judgements including the judgement in Union of India & Anr. vs. Shashank Goswami & Anr.-2012 (11) SCC 307 relied by the appellant and after dealing with the same held that the respondent-son was entitled to be given appointment on compassionate ground. It is argued that son of the respondent is still not been employed. The appellant earlier all around maintained that the respondent has received a sum of Rs.9,04,884.06 on account of terminal dues, gratuity and PF etc. whereas the fact is that a sum of Rs.2,69,698.80 deducted on the head of loan out of the said amount, which aspect was disclosed by the appellant now in the affidavit filed. Although in between the respondent discontinued the scheme of compassionate appointment and started giving ex-facie payment. The scheme for compassionate appointment to dependent family member of deceased employee was reintroduced. Learned counsel submitted that in clause 20(3) of that scheme, it is categorically mentioned that an application for compassionate appointment shall not be rejected solely on the ground that the family of the employee received the benefits of scheme under the various welfare schemes.

We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions and perused the material on record.

The learned Single Judge has heavily relied on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Chairman and Managing Director, Canara Bank, supra, wherein it has held as under:

"Insofar as the contention of the appellant-bank that since the respondent's family is getting family pension and also obtained the terminal benefits, in our view, is of no consequence in considering the application for compassionate appointment. Clause 3.2 of 1993 Scheme says that in case the dependant of deceased employee to be offered appointment is a minor, the bank may keep the offer of appointment open till the minor attains the age of majority. This would indicate that granting of terminal benefits is of no consequence because even if terminal benefit is given, if the applicant is a minor, the bank would keep the appointment open till the minor attains the majority.

The respondent-husband in the present case has died on 9.6.2003 and the appellant denied appointment on compassionate ground to the respondent by order dated 26.6.2004. The amount of monthly family pension approximately Rs.6,484 and the meager agriculture income of Rs.10,000 per month was hardly sufficient to deny right of consideration for compassionate appointment to the son of the respondent. The learned Single Judge has held that the retiral/terminal benefits are mostly financial consequences of service, which the deceased employee had rendered on which the family of the deceased employee has no control and the same is available to almost all the employees. Even otherwise, out of the total amount payable, sum of Rs.2,69,698.80 was deducted towards the loan and therefore the overall amount was reduced thereby.

The Supreme Court in recent judgement of Suhadra vs. Ministry of Coal & Anr.-(2018) 11 SCC 201 reiterating the same law, which was laid down in Canera Bank, supra has held that if female dependant opts for employment there is no further discretion left to employer, unless she is otherwise ineligible, but this discretionary compassionate appointment is governed by a scheme agreed to by the parties, which had become bipartite agreement. In the scheme in that case, para 9.5.0 gave option to a female dependant if she was below 45 years of age either to accept the monetary compensation for employment. The Supreme Court held that it is not an option reserved to the employer, but an option given to the employee. It was in terms of the agreement only that the appellant had been insisting that she should be given employment, if she is otherwise eligible in terms of Bipartite Agreement. But the second respondent kept on insisting that the son, being above the age of 12 years, would be kept on live roster until he attains the age of 18 years and till such time, the appellant would be given compensation @ Rs.3000 per month. In those facts, it was held that if the female dependant opposes for employment, there is no discretion left for the employer unless she is otherwise eligible. The judgement to the contrary passed by the High Court was set aside.

In the present case, the appellant had in between discontinued the Scheme for compassionate appointment, but the same has now been reintroduced. The modified scheme was approved by the Board of the appellant-Bank, which also had both the options i.e. ex gratia financial assistance or appointment on compassionate ground to the female employee who retired while in harness. This scheme was issued in view of the revised guidelines of the Government of India circular by Indian Bank Association. In para 20(iii) of that scheme, it has been clearly provided that an application for compassionate appointment shall not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the employee received benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground, a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family shall be made taking into account its assets and liabilities and all other relevant factors. The Bank cannot have different approach in a matter of compassionate appointment to the member of the deceased employee and those who have retired on medical ground. The appellant-Bank should take a balanced and objective approach even in the case where an amount of Rs.2,69,698.80 was deduced out of the total Rs.9,04,884.06 payable as terminal dues and gratuity etc. and only a sum of Rs.6,35,185.80 was paid on account of the death of the husband of the respondent and the family pension of Rs.6,484 cannot be said to be a very big amount so as to completely deny the consideration for appointment on compassionate ground. Moreover, the family pension of Rs.6,484 is too meager amount to justify such a decision.

In view of above discussion, we do not find any merit in this appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.