Swapnil Verma vs Punjab National Bank and Ors

Javed Iqbal Wani, J

In the instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner herein has prayed for the following reliefs:-

“i) to quash communication dated 20.05.2013 address by Advocate of the respondents-Bank by which the respondents have informed the petitioner that neither the petitioner nor his mother qualify to be appointed in the Bank on compassionate grounds, by issuance of writ of certiorari;

ii) to issue directions to the respondents to consider the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate in place of his father under the provisions of the Compassionate Appointment Rules, on any post according to his qualification, by issuance of writ of mandamus;

iii) to declare the act of respondents by which the respondents have not considered the case of petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds in place of his father, as ultra virus, illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, unjust and contrary to the provisions of law and Rules and against the provisions of principles of natural justice, by issuance of writ of mandamus;

OR

iv) to issue any other writ, order or directions which the Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents with costs.”

The facts under the shade and cover of which the instant petition has been filed are that the father of the petitioner was serving in Punjab National Bank as Branch Manager and while in service, died on 30.05.2012, whereafter, the mother of the petitioner made a representation before the respondent No. 3 wherein in the month of June 2012 for seeking compassionate appointment for the petitioner in order to cope up with the untimely death of her husband, while representation did not evoke any response from the respondents, whereafter a legal notice came to be served upon the respondents in response whereof, the respondents through their counsel informed the petitioner that neither his mother nor the petitioner is eligible and entitled for the compassionate appointment.

The petitioner has, while challenging the rejection of her claim by the respondents for compassionate appointment owing to the death of her father having died in harness, while working as Branch Manager in the respondent Bank, averred in the petition that the respondents could not deny the concession of compassionate appointment to the petitioner being in breach of law and rules and that the case of the petitioner has not been considered by the respondents in accordance with rules, but stands rejected without any reasonable cause and reason, thus, violating the provisions of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, inasmuch as, the principles of natural justice.

Objections to the petition have been filed by the respondents, wherein the petition is being opposed firstly on the premise that appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be claimed as a matter of right, though admitting that the father of the petitioner while serving as Branch Manager in the Bank died on 30.05.2012, besides admitting that a representation dated 28.01.2010 filed by the mother of the petitioner was received by the respondent-Bank, whereupon the mother of the petitioner came to be informed that there is no provision/rule in place providing for compassionate appointment to the next of the kin of the deceased officer cadre employee of the Bank and infact in terms of the Bank’s Policy contained in Circular No. 433 dated 03.11.2007, the appointment on compassionate grounds under Clause 2.1 issued by the Human Resources Development Department of the Bank is available only to the next kin/ dependent of the clerical/sub staff cadre employees and not to the dependents/next of kin of an officer of the Bank.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

It is not in dispute between the parties that the father of the petitioner herein died in harness on 30.05.2012 while serving as a Manager in the respondent-Bank. It is also not in dispute that the mother of the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment in the Bank owing to the death of her husband in harness while serving in the Bank followed by a legal notice served by the petitioner herein upon the respondent-Bank on 03.05.2013, wherein the petitioner herein sought her appointment on compassionate grounds in the bank owing of the death of her father. It is also in not dispute that the respondent-Bank rejected the claim of the petitioner while responding to the said legal notice through its counsel on 20.05.2013.

Perusal of the record available on the file indisputably tends to show that the respondent-Bank has admitted that circular dated 03.11.2007 is in place providing a scheme for compassionate appointment to be offered to the next of kin/dependent of clerical/sub staff employees alone of the Bank. A reference in this regard to Clause 2.1 of the said scheme contained in HRD Division Circular No. 433 dated 03.11.2007 would be relevant, which is extracted and reproduced hereunder:-

“2.1 Employment on Compassionate Grounds may be considered in clerical/sub staff cadres for a Dependent 'next of kin' of a Deceased Employee who expires while in harness, i.e. while in the service of the Bank, keeping in view the financial condition of the bereaved family, in terms of the Modified Scheme, only under circumstances specified below:-

a. Where an employee dies while performing his official duty, as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity; or,

b. Where an employee dies within 5 years of his 'first appointment' or before he reaches the age of 30 years, whichever is later, leaving behind a dependent spouse and/or minor children.”

“2.3. In all cases other than those specified at Para 2.1 above, where an employee expires while in harness, the family of the deceased employee shall be eligible to be considered under the scheme for payment of Ex-Gratia (lumpsum amount).”

A closer examination of the aforesaid Circular, admittedly, tends to show that in all cases other than those specified in para 2.1 (supra) of the Scheme, the family of the deceased employee who died in harness is eligible to be considered for payment of ex-gratia (lump sum amount).

As has been noticed in the preceding paras, even though the petitioner may not be eligible and entitled for compassionate appointment under the Circular (supra), yet under the said Circular, the family of the petitioner in terms of Clause 2.3 (supra) is eligible to be considered for payment of ex-gratia (lumpsum amount), which however, seemingly has been overlooked by the respondents while considering the case of the petitioner.

Viewed thus, what has been observed, considered and analyzed hereinabove, the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment owing to the death of her father in harness while serving in the Bank, is found to be lacking merit on account of her ineligibility and non-entitlement in view of circular No. 433 dated 03.11.2007. However, the family of the petitioner in terms Clause 2.3 (supra) of the said Circular is held entitled to receive the Ex-Gratia (lumpsum amount) from the respondent-Bank.

The petition in her of as are accordingly shall stand disposed of along with all connected application(s).

Disposed of.