JUDGMENT :

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, J.

1. Heard Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner.

2. This appeal is directed against a judgment and order dated 25.02.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in W.P. No. 24086 of 2004, whereby the said writ petition filed by the respondent herein was allowed by setting aside the proceedings dated 09.06.2003 issued by the 3rd appellant/3rd respondent and directing the appellants/respondents to appoint the respondent/writ petitioner in sub-staff cadre in the appellant-bank within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

3. Mr. B. John Prasada Rao, father of the respondent/writ petitioner, died on 19.12.1998 while working as a Clerk in the appellant-bank. The request made by the mother of the respondent/writ petitioner for providing compassionate appointment to the respondent/writ petitioner was rejected by the authorities of the bank by an order dated 07.01.2000, which prompted the respondent/writ petitioner to file a writ petition, numbered as W.P. No. 27078 of 2001, before this Court. It appears from the order dated 11.11.2002 passed in W.P. No. 27078 of 2001 that the prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected by the authorities on the ground that the terminal benefits of an amount of Rs. 3,54,396/- was paid and that the mother of the respondent/writ petitioner was being paid family pension. That apart, the appellants had also taken a stand that the housing loan obtained by the deceased employee was also waived and, therefore, no right accrued under law to claim appointment on compassionate grounds. The stand taken by the authorities was negated by this Court and, accordingly, the authorities were directed to reconsider the matter and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Subsequent thereto, the impugned order dated 09.06.2003 came to be passed by the 3rd appellant stating that the Committee appointed by the Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant-bank, which had interviewed the respondent/writ petitioner, found the respondent/writ petitioner not suitable for appointment to the post of Clerk as he was not able to write or read even a few sentences in English.

4. Dr. K. Lakshmi Narasimha, learned counsel for the appellants, submits that the respondent/writ petitioner possesses Intermediate qualification and in terms of Clause 5(iv)(a) of the Scheme for appointment of dependants of deceased employees of the bank on compassionate grounds, the case of the respondent/writ petitioner can be considered for appointment only in clerical cadre and as the selection committee had found him not suitable for appointment to the post of Clerk, his case was rightly refused for compassionate appointment. He further submits that the learned single Judge had wrongly placed reliance on Clause 5(iv)(b) of the Scheme, which pertains to appointment in sub-staff cadre. He submits that the Scheme has to be construed strictly and in support thereof, he places reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Canara Bank and Another vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) 7 SCC 412, Indian Bank and Others vs. Promila and Another, (2020) 2 SCC 729 and State of Madhya Pradesh and Others v. Amit Shrivas. He also submits that from the date of death of father of the respondent/writ petitioner, nearly 22 years have elapsed and therefore, at this point of time, it may not be necessary to consider the case of the respondent/writ petitioner for compassionate appointment.

5. Mr. Pratap Narayan Sanghi, learned counsel for the respondent/writ petitioner, on the other hand, supports the order under challenge and prays for dismissal of the appeal.

6. A perusal of Clause 3 of the Scheme for appointment of the dependants of deceased employees on compassionate grounds, called as the “Scheme for appointment in Officer, Clerical and allied cadre and Sub-Staff cadre of dependants of decea