Ram Chandra Jat vs State Bank of India

Sandeep Mehta, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties.

By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner seeks a direction for compassionate appointment in the respondent State Bank of India in place of his father late Narayan Ram, who was employed at Raika Bagh branch of the respondent Bank and expired during service on 7.11.2000.

Facts in brief are that upon the death of his father on 7.11.2000 while in service of the Bank, the petitioner submitted an application Annex. 1 with a prayer for being appointed in place of his father on compassionate grounds. The said application preferred by the petitioner was dismissed and a communication Annex. 2 dated 4.10.2001 was forwarded to the petitioner on the ground that the income from terminal benefits and investments which the family was receiving post the death of the employee was considered adequate for meeting the hardship and crisis in the near future. Thus, it was conveyed to the petitioner that he was ineligible to be appointed on compassionate ground. The petitioner claims that he continued to file numerous representations for redressal of his grievance but despite the assurance given by the respondent authorities time and again, his representations remained unheeded. On this, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the instant writ petition.

The respondents have filed a reply to the writ petition. A specific plea has been taken in the reply that the writ petition was highly belated and had been preferred after a delay of 8 years. The order rejecting the candidature of the petitioner was communicated to him way back in the year 2001 and he has approached the Court after undue delay and thus, he is not entitled to the reliefs claimed. It is further claimed in the reply that the compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and the object thereof is to enable the family of the deceased employee if in penury to tide over the sudden financial crisis caused due to death of the sole bread earner and not to provide employment. Appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the general rule of appointment. It is further averred in the reply that by the mere fact that the writ petition has been preferred after 9 years from the death of the employee, it can be assumed that the family was able to tide over the crisis arising from the date of the deceased employee Narayan Ram. The order Annex. 1 has been justified by stating that the entire record and the facts of the case were examined and thereafter, the order Annex. 1 was passed with the conclusion that the family of the deceased employee was not in the state of penury but rather was having sufficient sources of income. The order Annex. 1 was preceded with an enquiry wherein it was concluded that the sources of income of the family were sufficient to tide over and avert the financial crisis.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the action of the respondents in not giving compassionate appointment to the petitioner is highly unjust and arbitrary. He contends that the petitioner''s family had fallen into severe and deep financial crisis on account of the death of his father Narayan Ram who was a regular employee of the Bank. He, therefore, submits that the writ petition deserves to be accepted and the respondents be directed to appoint the petitioner on compassionate basis in place of his father. Certain documents i.e. bank pass book etc. were referred to in order to buttress the contention that the financial condition of the petitioner''s family is precarious. He thus prays that the writ petition deserves to be accepted.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Bank relies on the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court on 13.12.2012 in the case of State Bank of India and Ors. Vs. Kuldeep Kalla (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (W) No. 913/2006) and urges that appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the general rule which requires that the employees are to be recruited from the open market through a selection process prescribed by law. He further relied on the judgment of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, and urged that before giving appointment on compassionate ground, the employer is required to consider various factors viz., family pension received by the family, gratuity amount, employees/employers contribution to the PF, compensation paid by the employer, welfare fund, proceeds of LIC policy and other investments of the deceased employee, income of family from other sources, employment of other family members and size of the family and its liabilities, if any, etc. He submits that the petitioner''s prayer for being appointed on compassionate basis in place of his father was objectively examined by the committee formed by the Bank and in the light of the aforesaid factors and criterion and was thereafter rejected. He, therefore, submits that no interference is called for in the matter so as to grant the relief claimed in the writ petition. He further submits that as the assessment of the family''s financial sources has been made by the bank objectively, this Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal over the bank''s decision and such decision cannot be interfered with in exercise of extraordinary powers of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. He submits that if a direction is given to the Bank to appoint the petitioner then it would amount to interfering and putting fetters on the discretion of the Bank. He, therefore, prays that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and have perused the material available on the record.

The most significant factor which goes against the petitioner is the delay in approaching the Court after the death of Shri Narayan Ram. The law is well settled that the compassionate appointment is not to be given as a matter of right but is by way of a support to the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis arising from the death of the employee. Thus, before affording such appointment, it is essential for the employer to examine the financial conditions of the deceased''s family. If it is found that the family is having sufficient sources to tide over the financial crisis which has fallen upon the family on account of the death of sole bread earner, then obviously the appointment on compassionate basis would be impermissible. Such assessment is to be made by the employer in an objective fashion and after examining the total financial status and records of the family. Where such objective assessment is made and a logical conclusion arrived at subsequent thereto, obviously the Court would be loath to interfere in the discretion thus exercised by the employer. Obviously in order to get compassionate appointment of a kin of the deceased, it would be an essential pre-requisite that the family is not having sufficient sources of income and is in the state of penury. As in the case at hand, the family has been able to sustain for a long period of 9 years, the averment in the bank''s reply that the family can be assumed not to be in the state of penury, is apparently justified.

The Division Bench of this Court examined the matter in entirety while considering the case of Kuldeep Kalla (supra) and after relying upon the salutary principles of law propounded by Hon''ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar''s case (supra), the judgment passed by the Single Bench directing appointment on compassionate ground was reversed. The facts of the case at hand are even more formidable against the petitioner''s claim because he has approached this Court after a delay of 9 years.

In this view of the matter, the instant writ petition is not fit to be accepted and is hereby rejected.

No order as to costs.