IMPORTANT POINT
Retiral benefits are to be taken into consideration while dealing with prayer for compassionate appointment.

Headnote:SERVICE LAW-Appointment on compassionate ground-Respondent s father died while working as class IV employee of employer s bank-Request for appointment on compassionate ground was turned down on ground that there was no financial hardship to family of deceased as they had received substantial amounts after death of respondent s father-High Court in writ petition directed bank to give employment to respondent holding that retiral benefits received by heirs of deceased employee could not be made a ground for rejecting application for compassionate appointment-Appeal-Purpose of providing employment to dependant of a government servant dying in harness-Whether retiral benefits are to be taken into consideration while dealing with prayer for compassionate appointment? Yes-Impugned judgment could not be sustained.
       Held : One other thing which needs to be considered is whether the retiral benefits are to be taken into consideration while dealing with prayer for compassionate appointment. The High Court was of the view that the same was not to be taken into consideration. The view is contrary to what has been held recently in The General Manager (D&P.B.) & Ors. v. Kunti Tiwary & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 126 of 2004) disposed of on 5.1.2004). It was categorically held that the amounts have to be taken into consideration. In the instant case, there was a scheme called Scheme for Employment of the Dependants of the Employee who die while in the service of the Bank Service on Compassionate Grounds (in short the Scheme ) operating in the appellant No. 1 -Bank which categorically provides as follows :
       "FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE FAMILY
       The dependents of an employee dying in harness may be considered for compassionate appointment provided the family is without sufficient means of livelihood, specifically keeping in view the following :
        (a) Family pension;
        (b) Gratuity amount received;
        (c) Employee s/Employer s contribution to PF;
        (d) Any compensation paid by the bank or its Welfare Fund;
        (e) Proceeds of LIC policy and other investments of the deceased employee;
        (f) Income for family from other sources;
        (g) Employment of other family members;
        (h) Size of the family and liabilities, if any, etc."
       It is most respectfully submitted that the Board of Directors of the petitioner bank had approved the abovesaid scheme, which was based upon the guidelines circulated by Indian bank Association to all the Public Sector Banks which in turn are based upon the law laid down by this Hon ble Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported as 1994(4) SCC 138. The Scheme after approval was circulated vide PDCL 6/97 read with PDCL 11/99 dated 17.4.1999."
       Learned counsel for the respondent stated that in case of similarly situated persons compassionate appointments have been made by the Bank. But the appellants have justified the non-consideration of the respondent s appointment on compassionate grounds on the ground that the other cases related to non-pensionable category and unlike the case of the respondent, the other persons who were extended the benefits were not receiving any pension. View taken by the learned Single Judge and affirmed by the Division Bench by the impugned judgment cannot be sustained and both the order of the learned Single Judge and the judgment of the Division Bench are accordingly set aside. (Paras 9 to 11)

JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J.-Leave granted.

2. Punjab National Bank, (hereinafter referred to as the employer ) calls in question legality of the judgment by a Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur affirming the order passed by learned Single Judge holding that the respondent herein is entitled to be appointed on compassionate grounds.

3. Backgrounds facts in a nutshell are as follows :-

Respondent s father died on 3.12.1999 while working as a class IV employee of the employer-Bank leaving behind him, his mother-widow, two sons and one daughter. On 5.1.2000, the widow of the deceased-employee made a representation to the Bank on behalf of her elder son, (respondent herein) for employment on compassionate grounds. The request was turned down on 10.3.2000 and 17.3.2000 on the ground that there was no financial hardship to the family of the deceased and they had received substantial amounts after the death of the respondent s father. A writ petition was filed by the respondent before the Rajasthan High Court. By order dated 19th August, 2003, the Writ Petition was allowed with a direction to forthwith consider the case of respondent herein for compassionate appointment and provide him suitable job. The order was challenged in Letters Patent Appeal. By the impugned judgment the same was dismissed. It was held that retiral benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee cannot be made a ground for rejecting application for compassionate appointment.

4. In support of the appeal learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the approach of the High Court is erroneous. When the object of compassionate appointment is kept in view with reference to the amounts received by the heirs of the deceased-employee, it was submitted that there was no financial hardship. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the amounts like gratuity, provident fund etc. have no relevance for determining the question whether compassionate appointment is to be made. It is to be seen that the appointment on compassionate ground is not a source of recruitment but merely an exception to 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 crises.

5. As was observed in State of Haryana and Ors. v. Rani Devi & 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 v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar (Mrs.) and Anr. (1994(2) SCC 718) 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 v. Stat

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2004 Supreme(SC) 882

IMPORTANT POINTRetiral benefits are to be taken into consideration while dealing with prayer for compassionate appointment.

Cases Referred (11)

IMPORTANT POINT
Retiral benefits are to be taken into consideration while dealing with prayer for compassionate appointment.