Point of Law:FAMILY PENSION - Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The High Court also observed that it is not the case of the bank that the respondents’ family is having any other income to negate their claim for appointment on compassionate ground

ORDER :

1. This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the following relief:

“….this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue an order, direction more particularly in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and set aside the impugned order No.(HR-1) 278, dated 08.05.2015 issued by the 3rd respondent as illegal, arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioner herein for appointment on compassionate grounds forthwith and be pleased to pass such other order, orders, and as deemed fit and proper in the interest of justice.”

2. A counter-affidavit has been filed by the respondents.

3. Heard Sri K. Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Ms. V. Uma Devi, learned Standing Counsel for State Bank of India appearing for the respondents and perused the material available on record.

4. The case of the petitioner is that the father of the petitioner, who worked as Head Messenger in Market Yard Branch of State Bank of India, Adoni Branch, died on 26.11.2012 in harness. Thereafter the petitioner made a representation, dated 20.01.2013 to the 4th respondent requesting to provide employment on compassionate grounds. The mother of the petitioner made a presentation to the Assistant General Manager, SBI/Tirupati seeking appointment on compassionate grounds to the petitioner. The petitioner also submitted another representation, dated 05.05.2014 to the 1st respondent seeking for appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondents by their letter, dated 03.11.2014 rejected the request of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition is filed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the father of the petitioner died on 26.11.2012 in harness leaving behind his wife, petitioner, two other sons and two unmarried daughters and that there is no other earning member in the family.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Indian Bank Association vide letter No.CIRHR&IR/2014-15/ 532/576, dated 11.08.2014 communicated to all the Chief Executives of all Public Sector Banks with regard to scheme of compassionate appointment on compassionate ground in Public Sector Banks after receiving approval from the Government of India vide its letter DOF No.18/2/2013-IR, dated 07.08.2014. The copy of the scheme for adoption was sent to all banks for approval of the Board of Bank. In the light of the said scheme, the petitioner case has to be considered to provide compassionate appointment in favour of the petitioner.

7. On the other hand, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents submits that as per the existing instructions, the compassionate appointment scheme has been discontinued with effect from 04.08.2005 and replaced with SBI scheme for payment of ex-gratia lump sum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment and advised the petitioner to submit application in the prescribed format for payment of ex-gratia. Learned Standing Counsel contends that the revised scheme for compassionate appointment is applicable in exceptional cases which are specifically stated in the Circular Instructions, which is effective from 05.08.2014. The said scheme is not applicable to the petitioner’s case, as the date of death of petitioner’s father (i.e.) 26.11.2012 was prior to the introduction of compassionate appointment on exceptional cases (i.e.) 05.08.2014 and also the case did not fall under the category of exceptional case as specifically envisaged in the circular. As such, the claim of the petitioner was rejected. Therefore, the learned Standing Counsel sought for dismissal of the writ petition.

8. Having heard the submissions of the learned counsel for both sides and upon perusing the material available on record, it is an admitted fact that the father of the petitioner died on 26.11.2012 in harness, leaving behind his wife, petitioner, two other sons and two unmarried daughters.

9. The respondent Bank declined the claim o