JUDGMENT :

1. While hearing Writ Petition No. 3907 of 2021, a Division Bench of this Court (Bench at Nagpur) passed the following order dated April 7, 2022:

“The petitioner is the widow of one Shri Raju Khapekar who was serving as a Clerk at Bank of Baroda, Manewada Branch, Nagpur. He expired in harness on 22-8-2019. The petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds by moving an application dated 17-2-2020. The petitioner was informed on 5-12-2020 that under the ‘Scheme for Compassionate Appointment/Payment of Ex-gratia Financial Relief to dependents of deceased employees on Compassionate Ground’ dated 18-2-2016 the financial condition of the petitioner’s family was not found to be indigent. While arriving at that conclusion, various amounts received by the family towards provident fund, gratuity, etc. were taken into consideration. Being aggrieved the petitioner has challenged the aforesaid communication and seeks a direction to be issued to the Bank of Baroda for her appointment on compassionate grounds.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner by relying upon the decisions in Smt. Archana Wd/o Mahendra Arbat, Nanded and others vs. Maharashtra Gramin Bank, through its Regional Manager and others, 2021 (3) CLR 614 and Nitin Yohan Arawade vs. Central Bank of India, Central office, through its General Manager, 2021 (3) CLR 617 has urged that the amounts received towards provident fund and gratuity are not liable to be taken into consideration while determining the question whether the family was indigent or not. He submitted that in Nitin Yohan Arawade (supra) it has been held that payments of these statutory amounts cannot be considered as an impediment for being taken into consideration to deny compassionate appointment. On the contrary, the learned counsel for the Bank has relied upon the decisions in Punjab National Bank and others vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja, AIR 2004 SC 4155, General Manager (D and PB) and others vs. Kunti Tiwary and another, (2004) 7 SCC 271, State Bank of India and others vs. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571 and State of Himachal Pradesh vs. Shashi Kumar, (2019) 3 SCC 653 to urge that the amounts received towards provident fund and gratuity have to be considered while determining the financial health of the family in the matter of grant of compassionate appointment in the context of the family being indigent.

3. According to the Bank the petitioner after the death of her husband received an amount of Rs. 3,80,395/- towards provident fund and Rs. 6,88,110/- against gratuity. An amount of Rs. 56,719/- was also received by her towards leave encashment, Rs. 20,00,000/- was paid towards Group Term Life Insurance on 30-9-2019. The petitioner was initially receiving pension of Rs. 14,954/- per month from October 2019 which was revised to Rs. 25,584/- from September 2021. On the basis of receipt of aforesaid amounts, it is submitted that the Bank found that the financial condition of the family was not indigent and therefore the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate basis was not found to be made out under Clause 5 of the Scheme.

4. The Circular dated 18-2-2016 laying down the Scheme for compassionate appointment indicates that as per Clause 5.1, one of the conditions of eligibility for seeking compassionate appointment is that the family of the employee who died in harness is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution. Clause 5 of the Scheme for compassionate appointment that stipulates eligibility reads as under :

“5. Eligibility:

5.1 The family is indigent and deserves immediate assistance for relief from financial destitution and.....”

Under Clause 16.3 of the Scheme an application for compassionate appointment is not liable to be rejected merely on the ground that the family has received benefits under various welfare schemes. However, such benefits received have to be taken into account while making a balanced and objective assessment of the financial co