Ravi Kumar vs Union Bank Of India

The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by order dated 18.09.2017 (Anneuxre P/1) issued by Respondent No.1, whereby the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected.

Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner's father late Gotariha Ram was Peon in Union Bank, Arjuni Branch, and on 31.05.2015 he died in harness. After the death of Gotariha Ram, petitioner filed an application for compassionate appointment before the respondent authorities along with relevant documents, affidavit and consent letter (Annexure P/2) of other family members. Thereafter, the respondent authorities directed the petitioner to submit certain documents like income certificate, character certificate and other documents regarding educational qualification. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted income certificate and character certificate (Annexure P/3) issued by the competent authority.

According to the petitioner, there is policy framed by the Central Government for compassionate appointment in pubic sector bank on 07.08.2014 and according to Clause-5 of said scheme (Annexure P/4), it was directed to provide the compassionate appointment to the candidate, whose family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution.

The respondent authorities did not consider the claim of petitioner for compassionate appointment and rejected his claim on the ground that as per the scheme of compassionate appointment, the family of deceased was not considered indigent, leading to filing of the instant petition seeking following relief (s):-

“10.1. That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside/quash the impugned order dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure P/1) and further be pleased to direct the respondent authorities for reconsidering the case of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment as per their own policy/scheme.

10.2 That any other relief/order which may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including award of the cost of the petition may be given.”

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure P/1) is bad in law being arbitrary, illegal, unwarranted, unreasonable and unauthorized, therefore, hit by the postulates of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that while passing the impugned order the respondent authorities have completely overlooked the fact that the family member of deceased is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get an appointment on compassionate ground as per the scheme framed by the Central Government. The petitioner is living below the poverty line and after the death of his father, he is facing great financial crisis to run livelihood. The application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has been rejected summarily without examining his financial status. As such, the impugned order 18.09.2017 (Annexure P/1) is liable to be set aside and the respondent authorities may be directed to reconsider the case of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment as per their own policy/scheme. In support of submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur passed in the matter of Devanand Arkhel Vs. Union Bank of India & Ors. (order dated 29.11.2022 passed in W.P. No.17111/2022).

Learned counsel for respondents strongly opposed the prayer of petitioner and submits that the present petition is without any merit and deserves to be dismissed. Learned counsel contended that it is well settled law that the purpose of giving compassionate appointment to a dependent of deceased employee who died in harness is to help the family of the deceased employee to tide over the immediate financial crises which arises due to certain demise of the bread earner of the family. The purpose of giving compassionate appointment is also to overcome the situation of sudden penury which arises upon the death of the bread winner of the family. Late father of the petitioner was an employee of the respondent Bank and, as such the services, terms and condition applicable upon the employees of the respondents was also applicable upon the father of the petitioner and compassionate appointment would be given to the petitioner only as per the provisions of Compassionate Appointment Policy/scheme of the respondents which has framed the compassionate appointment policy.

Learned counsel further submits that the compassionate appointment is not a vested right of a deceased employee’s family and they are strictly governed by Bank’s policy in this regard. In terms of Bank’s policy circulated vide staff Circular No. 6165 dated 19.01.2015, the petitioner is not eligible for compassionate appointment. The widow of deceased employee is receiving pension and has also received the retiral dues/terminal benefits. Mere death of employee does not entitle the petitioner to compassionate appointment. The respondent is bound by the rules/policy/scheme with regard to compassionate appointment and before granting the same the respondents have to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased and it is only if the concerned authority/committee of compassionate appointment is satisfied that but for the provision of employment the family will not be able to meet the crises then only the job can be offered to the petitioner.

Learned counsel also submits that as per the application, income certificates and other documents of the petitioner, the petitioner, his elder brother and mother earns Rs.60,000/-, Rs.50,000/- and Rs.45,000/- annually respectively as agricultural income. Besides agricultural income, the family members of deceased employee received terminal benefit of Rs.5,57,483/-. That apart, mother of the petitioner is drawing family pension amounting to Rs.9,335/- as of June 2015 and the same is increased to Rs.10,449/- as of February, 2018. Thus, the net monthly notional income of the petitioner’s family after the death of the petitioner’s father works out to Rs.26,712/- whereas, the last drawn monthly salary of the petitioner’s father was only Rs.24,717/-Thus, comparing the monthly notional income with the last drawn salary of petitioner’s father comes in excess of Rs.1,995/-. Therefore, the Committee, after considering all these aspects and according to relevant circular, finds that the family of the petitioner is not indigent and do not deserve immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution, rejected the application of the petitioner vide its order dated 17.06.2017 and the same was intimated to the petitioner by the respondents vide its letter dated 18.09.2017.

Learned counsel also submits that the petitioner has willfully  suppressed the material facts knowingly and with ulterior motive to hoodwink the Court. The petitioner intentionally not filed the application for compassionate appointment in prescribed form and has also not filed the income certificates along with the application, wherein the petitioner had clearly mentioned about his income and income of his family members. The petitioner has not approached this Court with clean hand and, as such the petitioner is guilty of suppression of material facts and not entitled for any relief. The petition is without any merit and the same deserves to be dismissed.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

It is an admitted position in this case that the petitioner’s father Late Shri Gotariha Ram was working as Peon in respondent Bank at Arjuni Branch and on 31.05.2015 he died in harness. It is also not disputed that the petitioner had filed an application for compassionate appointment, which was rejected by respondent Bank by impugned order dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure P/1) on this ground that as per the guidelines, the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment and as per scheme of compassionate appointment, the family of the petitioner was not considered indigent.

The respondent Bank has filed the application dated 02.05.2016 (Annexure R/2) of the petitioner, wherein the petitioner has annexed income certificate of himself, his brother Puna Ram and his mother Bartin Bai. According to these certificates, the petitioner’s income is Rs.60,000/-, his brother Puna Ram’s income is Rs.50,000/- and his mother Bartin Bai’s income is Rs.45,000/- per annum.

It is the submission of learned counsel for respondent Bank that looking to these income certificates, the petitioner’s family does not fall within the ambit of indigent family, as such held him to be not entitled for compassionate appointment. The respondents have filed copy of Committee’s recommendation dated 17.06.2017 (Annexure R/3), whereby the Committee, considering the relevant aspects of the matter, arrived at conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for compassionate appointment. For sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the Committee’s recommendations are reproduced herein as under :-

“1. Observations & Recommendations of the Committee :

The committee discussed the case thoroughly and noted the following points :

A. Facts :

Late Shri Gotariha Ram Bhoyer was 57 years of age at death and had 26 months of service left.

He is survived by spouse and two sons and three married daughters.

Shri Ravi Kumar son of Late Shri Gotariha Ram Bhoyer has applied for compassionate appointment.

He is 22 years of age and has passed Std. 8th.

In terms of the Income Certificates submitted by the family, Smt. Bartin Bai w/o Late Shri Gotariha Ram Bhoyer, Shri Puna Ram elder son of Late Shri Gotariha Ram Bhoyer and Shri Ravi Kumar younger son of late Shri Gotariha Ram Bhoyer are earning Rs.45000/-, Rs.50000/- and Rs.60000/- annually respectively.

The last drawn monthly salary of Late Shri Gotariha Ram Bhoyer was Rs.24717/- whereas the net monthly notional income of the family from all sources after his death woks out to Rs.26712/-. There is an excess income amounting to Rs.1995/-, As such, family cannot be considered indigent.

B. Recommendations :

In view of the above, the Committee has, recommended for declining the application for compassionate appointment of Shri Ravi Kumar son of Late Shri Gotariha Ram Bhoyer.

While dealing with the issue of compassionate appointment, the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in the matter of Devanand Arkhel (supra) held in para 10 as under :-

“10. Admittedly the petitioner is an unemployed. The concept of joint family keeps on changing. The mother of the petitioner has received the terminal benefits for the service of her husband/employee. The earning brothers of the deceased may separate from the joint family in future. They may have their own family structure with the passage of time. The petitioner is a qualified and unemployed person and has a right in terms of policy of compassionate appointment. In view of aforesaid precedents, it is evidently clear that the receipt of any terminal benefits by the family is not a ground to discard the compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner. For this issue, this Court finds that the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Govind Prakash Verma (supra), Canara Bank & anotehr (supra) and Supriya Suresh Patel @ Sow Supriya Pratik Kadam (supra) are fully attracted to the facts of the present case. Even the family pension could not have been made a ground for denying the compassionate appointment to the petitioner, as the family pension is earned by the spouse of the deceased/ employee in his/her independent statutory right, which has nothing to do with the aspect of the compassionate appointment, if any provided under the collateral rules or instructions issued for that purpose. After taking note of all the attending facts and circumstances of the case, I deem it appropriate to quash the impugned order.”

In the instant case also, the respondent Bank while arriving at the conclusion of rejection of claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, calculated the deceased’s pension, income of other family member and denied the application of the petitioner, without taking into consideration the fact that the income of family members are individual and not of a petitioner’s. While arriving at any finding the respondent Bank had to consider the petitioner’s annual income only, which according the respondent Bank worked out to be Rs.60,000/-, which considering the present inflation, is not sufficient to run a family. This Court is not in agreement with the finding recorded by the respondent Bank and the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

In the result, the instant petition is allowed and impugned order dated 18.09.2017 (Annexure P/1) is set aside. The respondent Bank is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as per the financial condition in light of scheme and guidelines of compassionate appointment of respondent Bank.