The financial status of the family cannot be the basis for refusing compassionate appointment to an eligible candidate.

JUDGMENT

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J. - Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. The petitioner has put forth prayer clauses A and B as under :-

"A) That a writ of mandamus or writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India be issued calling for the records and proceedings from the Respondent being an order dated 25.01.2018 and communicated through a letter dated 31.03.2018 marked at Annexure F and examine the legality, validity and propriety thereof and be pleased to quash and/or set aside the same;

B) Issue direction/ order to reconsider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment in accordance with law and as per the scheme in existence."

3. The father of the petitioner, namely, Yohan Paulas Arawade was in employment with the respondent/ Central Bank of India as the Special Assistant at the Kolegaon Branch, District Ahmednagar. He put in 34 years and 02 months in employment when he opted for Voluntary Retirement (VRS) on medical grounds since the Permanent Medical Board of the respondent/ Bank examined him and certified that he was "completely and permanently incapacitated" to perform any type of services in the respondent/ Bank. He was suffering from Impaired Cognitive Profile. The certificate issued by the Dean of Sasoon General Hospital, Pune dated 07.04.2015 indicated that his incapacity cannot be attributed to or said to be accelerated or aggravated by irregular or intemperate habits.

4. The respondent/ Bank floated a scheme titled as "Sir Sorabji Pochkhanawala Memorial Death Relief Scheme for Employees of Central Bank of India", on 05.08.2014. This scheme is prepared and implemented by the respondent through various circulars issued by the Human Resources Development Department and this aspect is undisputed.

5. The petitioner states that his father had met with a severe accident in 2014 and on account of the same, he had to undergo extensive medical treatment, which cost him an amount of Rs.10 lac towards medical expenses. The respondent/ Bank assisted him by providing Rs.1.5 lac. Along with the petitioner, there were in all six dependents on the employment of his father including one sister of the petitioner, who got married and subsequently, was divorced by her husband thereby, returning to the father's home.

6. The petitioner submits that on 25.06.2015, the father of the petitioner was granted the benefit of VRS on medical ground and relieved from employment. The petitioner preferred an application on 20.07.2015 in a printed format supplied to him, setting out the dependents on his father's income and the financial condition of the family. Since the petitioner was in employment with the ICICI Bank in clerical category, he was informed by the respondent/ Bank that if he resigns from the said employment, he would be entitled for seeking compassionate appointment with the respondent. His application was, therefore, kept pending. Since the petitioner found that his career prospects with the respondent were better than the job that he had with the ICICI Bank, he tendered his resignation on 02.03.2016 and intimated the respondent about the said fact and prayed that his application for compassionate appointment may be considered.

7. The petitioner further submits that by the impugned communication dated 31.03.2018, the petitioner was informed by the Branch Manager of the respondent that his application for seeking appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected only for the reason that the family of the ex-employee was not indigent. It is, therefore, submitted that the right of the petitioner to be inducted in employment of the respondent on compassionate ground, cannot be defeated merely because the family is not indigent. Reliance is placed on the following judgments :-

(a) Canara Bank and another vs. M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) AIR SC 2411.

(b) Balbir Kaur and another vs. Steel Authority