R. Latha vs Punjab National Bank, Human Resources Development Division and Regional Manager, Punjab National Bank, HRD Section

N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J.—In this writ petition petitioner seeks to quash Clause 9.6 of the Circular No.235 dated 7.1.2005 of the first

respondent and to direct the second respondent to appoint her in the place of her deceased husband on compassionate ground.

The brief facts necessary for disposal of this writ petition as stated in the affidavit in support of the writ petition are that the petitioner is the

widow of one G. Ravichandran, who was employed as Cashier in the first respondent Bank at Sivakasi. He died on 29.12.2003 leaving behind his

family consisting of his wife and two minor children in indigent circumstance. Petitioner has passed higher secondary examinations. The second

respondent advised the petitioner to submit an application in the regular format for appointment on compassionate ground in the year 2003 and

consequently the petitioner submitted an application in August, 2004. On 13.9.2004, the respondent requested the petitioner to appear for an

interview on 20.9.2004 with all original certificates. Petitioner produced all the certificates and the same were verified. After more than one year,

i.e, on 7.12.2005 the second respondent informed that instead of compassionate appointment, petitioner will be paid ex-gratia amount as per the

circular issued by the first respondent dated 7.1.2005. The said order is challenged in this writ petition.

(a) Respondents have filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that on the date of the death of the petitioner''s husband on 29.12.2003, there

existed a scheme for compassionate appointment to the dependants of the employees, who died while in service and also to the dependants of the

employees, who retired on medical grounds. The scheme was communicated to the second respondent Bank through circular letter No.6/97 dated

20.3.1997 and according to the terms of the scheme, the bank while conveying the condolences to the family of the deceased employee on

30.12.2003, advised the petitioner to avail the scheme and in response to the same, petitioner submitted an application on 7.1.2004 and the same

was forwarded to the Zonal Office at Chennai by the Regional Office at Trichy on 14.6.2004 and the same was submitted to the Head Office at

New Delhi seeking permission to call for the petitioner for interview by the second respondent Office to assess her suitability for compassionate

appointment in the respondent Bank in clerical cadre. The matter was placed before the competent authority, the Head Office at New Delhi, who

on examining the same permitted the petitioner to be interviewed for the post of clerical cadre. Accordingly, the petitioner was called for an

interview at the Regional Office, Trichy on 20.9.2004 and the evaluation sheet after the interview was forwarded to the Head Office with other

documents.

(b) It is also stated in the counter affidavit that the Government of India issued circular in the year 2001 to the Banks and stated that instead of

giving compassionate appointment to the families of the deceased employees the Banks may provide suitable monetary benefit/ex-gratia to the real

indigent family of the deceased employees and the Ministry of Finance, Government of India also directed the Indian Banks'' Association by letter

dated 30.10.2003 that the recruitment to the Public Sector Banks should be made on the basis of open advertisement and selection on merit and

advised the banks to formulate a model scheme for payment of monetary assistance in lieu of compassionate appointment and advised the Banks

to implement the same in all Public Sector Banks on uniform basis. The said letter was forwarded to the respondent Bank and the Board of

Directors of the respondent bank in its meeting held on 29.10.2004 approved the scheme of providing ex-gratia in lieu of providing compassionate

appointment and the scheme came into force with effect from 29.10.2004.

(c) Clause 9.6 of the circular states that the scheme will come into force from the date of its approval by the Board and all the applications pending

for compassionate appointment will be dealt with in accordance with the said scheme and as per the said scheme ex-gratia may be granted to the

family of the deceased employees subject to the ceiling of Rs. 8 lakhs for the Officers, Rs. 7 lakhs for the Clerical staff, Rs. 6 lakhs for the

Subordinate Staff, provided the source of income of the family is less than 60% of the last drawn salary of the employee.

(d) According to the counter affidavit since the petitioner''s application was pending, she is not entitled to get appointment under the said scheme

and therefore she is entitled to get only lumpsum amount as per the scheme which came into force from 20.10.2004.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner argued that the said scheme itself is very clear and in Clause 8 of the circular it is stated that ""the scheme

comes into force from 29.10.2004. All such cases in which the applications for providing employment on compassionate grounds received by the

Bank and decision was taken in accordance with the said scheme will not be covered under the said scheme."" The learned Counsel, pointing out

the said clause in the circular submitted that the petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment as advised by the second

respondent and the application was considered under the scheme, which was in existence on the date of death of petitioner''s husband; that the

request of the petitioner seeking compassionate appointment was duly recommended by the second respondent and forwarded to the Zonal office

at Madras, which in turn forwarded the same to the Head Office at New Delhi and the Head Office also took a decision to give compassionate

appointment to the petitioner after conducting interview for verification of the certificates and that all the papers were again forwarded to the Head

Office for issuing formal order of appointment. Therefore, so far as the petitioner is concerned, the respondent Bank has already taken the decision

which was in vogue prior to 29.10.2004 and consequently the scheme itself provided for implementing the earlier decision taken and therefore the

petitioner is entitled to be given compassionate appointment. Hence the petitioner can be given the relief without quashing Clause 9.6 of the

circular.

The learned Counsel for the respondents submitted that it is true the petitioner was advised to submit application for compassionate appointment

by the second respondent and the petitioner submitted the same which was forwarded and recommended by the second respondent to the Zonal

Office and the Head Office also granted permission to conduct interview pursuant to which interview was also conducted and all the papers are

pending with the first respondent and before issuing the order of appointment, the scheme was modified on 29.10.2004 and therefore the

petitioner''s application should be treated as pending application, without any final decision and therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get

compassionate appointment and that she is eligible to get only ex-gratia payment. The learned Counsel also cited a judgment of the Allahabad High

Court.

I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents. It is not in dispute that the

petitioner''s husband was working as Cashier in the Sivakasi branch of the first respondent Bank and he died on 29.10.2003 while he was on duty.

While extending the condolences on 30.12.2003, the second respondent advised the petitioner to apply for compassionate appointment as the

Bank was having the scheme for providing compassionate appointment. The second respondent again directed the petitioner to apply in the

prescribed format which the petitioner also complied with and even according to the counter affidavit, the request of the petitioner was

recommended by the second respondent and forwarded to the Zonal Office at Chennai and again forwarded to the first respondent at New Delhi

and the Head Office took a decision to conduct interview for the petitioner by verifying the certificates, pursuant to which, on 20.9.2004 petitioner

appeared for interview for certificate verification and all the files were sent to the first respondent for issuing a formal appointment order as early as

on 20.9.2004. At this juncture, I feel it is useful to refer the contents in the counter affidavit at paragraphs 6 to 8 which read as follows:

In terms of the Scheme the Bank, while conveying their condolences to the family of deceased employee, Regional Office, Trichy vide their

letter dated 30.12.2003 addressed to Smt. Latha, the petitioner herein had advised her about the scheme. In response to the same the petitioner

vide her letter dated nil had requested for employment on compassionate grounds and application on prescribed format was submitted by her on

7.1.2004. The application after being processed was sent to Integrated Zonal Office, Chennai by Regional Office, Trichy on 14.6.2004 and the

same was submitted to Head Office by the Integrated Zonal Office on 16.6.2004, seeking permission to call the petitioner for interview by

Regional office, Trichy to assess her suitability for employment in the respondent Bank on compassionate grounds in clerical cadre.

The matter was placed before the Competent Authority of the Respondent Bank at Head Office (HO), who on examining the same had

permitted Smt. Latha to be interviewed for the post of clerical cadre.

Accordingly the petitioner was called for interview at Regional office, Trichy on 20.9.2004 and the Interview Evaluation Sheet etc. were

forwarded to HO and other documents called for by them were also submitted.

As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, insofar as the petitioner''s case is concerned, at the Head Office level a decision

has been taken to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner and thereafter only the petitioner was directed to appear for interview on

20.9.2004. The first respondent after receiving the particulars kept quite without issuing formal appointment order. Only on 29.10.2005, a decision

was taken by the first respondent bank to give lumpsum payment instead of compassionate appointment. In the scheme itself Clause 8 clearly

states that the decision already taken as per the old scheme will be dealt with in accordance with the old scheme and will not be covered under the

new scheme, which came into force on 29.10.2004. Hence, it is clear that the circular of the first respondent dated 7.1.2005 clearly supports the

case of the petitioner.

(i) The scheme framed by the Bank prior to 29.10.2004 enables the persons to get compassionate appointment and the said scheme is also

legally valid as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in the decision reported in 2005 (3) LW 66 National Hydroelectric Power Corporation

and Anr. v. Nanak Chand and Anr., wherein in paras 5 and 6 it is held thus,

It is to be seen that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception the requirement regarding

appointments being made on open invitation of application on merits. Basic intention is that on the death of the employee concerned his family is

not deprived of the means of livelihood. The object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis.

As was observed in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi and Anr. JT 1996 (6) SCC 646, it need not be pointed out that the claim of person

concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on the premises that he was dependant on the deceased employee. Strictly this

claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and

permissible on the basis of sudden crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service. That is why it

is necessary for the authorities to frame rules, regulations or to issue such administrative orders which can stand the test of Articles 14 and 16.

Appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. Die-in-harness scheme cannot be made applicable to all types of

posts irrespective of the nature of service rendered by the deceased employee. In Rani Devi''s case (supra) it was held that scheme regarding

appointment on compassionate ground if extended to all types of casual or ad hoc employees including those who worked as apprentices cannot

be justified on constitutional grounds. In Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Mrs. Asha Ramachandra Ambekar and another, it was pointed

out that High Courts and Administrative Tribunals cannot confer benediction impelled by sympathetic considerations to make appointments on

compassionate grounds when the regulations framed in respect thereof do not cover and contemplates such appointments. It was noted in Umesh

Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, that as a rule in public service appointment should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation

of applications and merit. The appointment on compassionate ground is not another source of recruitment but merely an exception to the aforesaid

requirement taking into consideration the fact of the death of employee while in service leaving his family without any means of livelihood. In such

cases the object is to enable the family to get over sudden financial crisis. But such appointments on compassionate ground have to be made in

accordance with the rules, regulations or administrative instructions taking into consideration the financial condition of the family of the deceased.

(ii) In the decision reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289 Govind Prakash Verma v. LIC of India also the Honourable Supreme Court ordered

compassionate appointment to the person even though he received other terminal benefit, family pension, etc.

(iii) In Tamil Nadu State Transport Corpn. (Kumbakonam Division-I) Limited formerly Cholan Roadways Corpn. Ltd. Vs. Lalitha, , a Division

Bench of this Court held that the scheme for providing compassionate appointment on the death of the deceased employee is a beneficial piece of

legislation and the same should be liberally construed. The Division Bench followed the judgments of the Honourable Supreme Court in Transport

Corporation of India Vs. Employees'' State Insurance Corpn. and Another, and B.D. Shetty and Others Vs. M/s Ceat Ltd. and Another, .

(iv) In B.D. Shetty and Others Vs. M/s Ceat Ltd. and Another, the Honourable Supreme Court in para 12 held thus:

One must not lose sight of the fact that the Act is a beneficial piece of legislation and the provision of subsistence allowance made is intended to

serve a definite purpose of sustaining the workman and his family members during the bad time when he is under suspension, pending inquiry. This

provision is enacted with a view to ensure social welfare and security. Hence, such a beneficial piece of legislation has to be understood and

construed in its proper and correct perspective so as to advance the legislative intention underlying its enactment rather than abolish it. Assuming

two views are possible, the one, which is in tune with the legislative intention and furthers the same, should be preferred to the one which would

frustrate it.

The unreported judgment of the Allahabad High Court made in Civil Miscellaneous W.P.No.48475 of 2005 dated 23.5.2006 no way supports

the case of the respondents. In the said case the candidate sent the application prior to 29.10.2004, on which no decision was taken either in the

Regional level or in Zonal level or by the Head Office to proceed further in the matter by calling the candidate for interview. Therefore, in that case

the application of the petitioner was treated as pending application, without any decision. Hence the Allahabad High Court held that the petitioner

in that writ petition was entitled to get ex-gratia payment and not compassionate appointment.

Here in this case, the Circular dated 7.1.2005 itself states that the decision already taken can be implemented as per the earlier scheme and

therefore the petitioner''s request to quash the operation of the scheme is found unnecessay, as the same is favourable to the petitioner.

In view of the above finding, the respondents are bound to give compassionate appointment to the petitioner as per the decision already taken

by the first respondent, pursuant to which interview was also held. The first respondent is directed to pass orders granting compassionate

appointment to the petitioner based on her qualification within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

The writ petition is allowed with the above direction. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.