Satendra Kumar Singh vs Chairman and Managing Director and Others

Pankaj Naqvi, J.—Supplementary rejoinder affidavit filed today is taken on record.

Heard Shri Manu Saxena, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri Vivek Ratan, learned Counsel for the respondent Bank.

By means of the present petition, the petitioner seeks a writ for quashing the orders dated 27.2.1999, 5.3.1999 and 14.5.1999 (Annexures 8, 9 and 10 to the writ petition) intimating him that his claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected. He has further sought a mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint him in the bank on compassionate basis.

The father of the petitioner was a Branch Manager in the Union Bank of India, Saraimeer Branch, Azamgarh, who died in harness on 19.1.1995 leaving behind a widow and minor children including the petitioner, who was to attain majority on 11.8.1997. A request was made by the mother of the petitioner that as she is unable to take an appointment on health grounds, but in lieu thereof the request of her son for compassionate appointment be considered after 2 years 3 months. The petitioner attained majority on 11.8.1997 and applied for compassionate appointment on 14.8.1997 on the basis of staff circular of the respondent bank. On 27.2.1999 the respondent bank issued a letter to the mother of the petitioner intimating her that the Bank has declined the request on 4.2.1999; a similar letter was also issued by the Regional Office of the Bank, Agra on 5.3.1999 and 14.5.1999 declining the request. The mother of the petitioner addressed representation dated 17.8.2000 before respondent No. 1, but as the grievance was not redressed, the petitioner preferred the present writ petition.

It is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent Bank adopted a hostile and discriminatory attitude qua the petitioner, inasmuch as, in 1997 the dependant of one Shri S.K. Jain was given compassionate appointment and the case of the petitioner is similar to the case of Shri S.K. Jain. He would also submit that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by a non-speaking order, the matter be remitted back for a fresh reconsideration in accordance with law.

Refuting the aforesaid submissions Shri Vivek Ratan, learned Counsel for the respondent Bank would submit that it is a settled proposition of law that the grant of compassionate appointment has to be considered on the basis of the prescribed norms and in case the petitioner''s case does not fall within the same, no vested right could be claimed over such an appointment. He also submitted that since on the date of death of the deceased the petitioner was still a minor, the vacancy could not be reserved till the attainment of majority of the petitioner. He also submits that the claim of the petitioner was rejected in 1999, whereas the petitioner filed the present petition in 2002, thus the petition is barred by laches.

The compassionate appointments are not regular appointments and the sole purpose and object for the same is to provide immediate financial support and succour to the family of the deceased in financial distress. Death of the father occurred on 19.1.1995. A claim for compassionate appointment by the petitioner was lodged on 14.8.1997, which was rejected on 27.2.1999. The petitioner approached this Court in 2002. There is nothing on record as to how the petitioner managed all these years. Moreover, the family was receiving Rs. 3,906/- as family pension in 2003 and was also paid terminal dues of Rs. 2.82 lacs.

No doubt, the orders dated 27.2.1999, 5.3.1999 and 14.5.1999 are communications intimating the petitioner that his claim has been rejected, but the Court is of the view that as considerable period has elapsed, and on available materials, no purpose would be served at this stage to direct the respondent bank to reconsider the issue of compassionate appointment. Issuing a writ at this stage on the facts of the case would be a futile exercise. The writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.