SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Pat) 1133

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
P. B. BAJANTHRI, J.
Prashant Kumar @ Prasant Kumar S/o Late Ranjan Kumar – Appellant
Versus
The Allahabad Bank through its General Manager (H.R.) - Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22993 of 2019
Decided on : 29-03-2022

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Krishna Kant Singh, Advocate
For the Respondent:Sri Ashok Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate Dr. Binod Kumar Jha, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment is only as per Para 5.1 and 5.2 of the Circular dated 03.08.2015, and not as stipulated in Para 17.1.

Headnote:

Compassionate Appointment - Employment Law - Circular dated 03.08.2015 - Para 17, 17.1 - The court discussed the relevant provisions of the Circular dated 03.08.2015, specifically Para 17 and 17.1, which relate to the payment of lumpsum ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment and the general income criteria for ex-gratia. The court interpreted that the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment is only as per Para 5.1 and 5.2, and not as stipulated in Para 17.1. The decision influenced the court's finding that the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment without reference to Para 17 of the circular dated 03.08.2015.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner sought compassionate appointment after the death of their father while in service. The respondent-bank rejected the claim based on the general income criteria stated in Para 17 of the Circular dated 03.08.2015.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment is only as per Para 5.1 and 5.2, and not as stipulated in Para 17.1. The court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order, remanding the matter to the respondent-bank for reconsideration of the petitioner's claim without reference to Para 17 of the circular dated 03.08.2015.

Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment and if the general income criteria clause in Para 17 was applicable for compassionate appointment.

Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Circular dated 03.08.2015, specifically Para 17 and 17.1, and the finding that the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment is only as per Para 5.1 and 5.2.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the respondent-bank for reconsideration of the petitioner's claim without reference to Para 17 of the circular dated 03.08.2015.

JUDGMENT :

1. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-

    “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 27.8.2019 passed by the respondent Assistant General Manager T. D) Contained in his Ref. No. HO/Admin/TD/2019-20/Comp. Apptt./28512 dated 27. 8. 19 whereby and where under respondent Assistant Manager has been pleased to reject the Claim of appointment on Compassionate Ground on nonest ground.

(ii) Further for issuance of an appropriate Writ in the nature of MANDAMUS Commanding and directing the responding authority to appoint the petitioner on Compassionate ground due to death caused by harness of father of the petitioner. Who was discharging his duty as Executive officer (ex. C.C.) in the respondent bank.

(iii) Further for issuance of any other writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for which petitioner shall be found entitled Under the facts and circumstances of the case as stated herein below under principle of equitable Justice.”

2. Petitioner’s father while working in the respondent-bank service died on 24.12.2016, thereafter, petitioner submitted application for compassionate appointment on 28.09.2018. The petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has not been considered in the light of Paragraph 17 of the Circular dated 03.08.2015. It relates to payment of lumpsum ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Policy/Relief scheme of ex-gratia amount of compassionate appointment was launched on 03.08.2015 vide Circular No. 13846/PA/2015-16-26 furnished to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-bank. Para 17 of the Circular is relating to payment of lumpsum ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment. The criteria is general income criteria for ex-gratia may be granted to the family of the employee in the manner and subject to fulfilling specified criteria, i.e., if the monthly income of the family from all sources is less than 60% of the last drawn gross salary (net of taxes) of the employee.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid clause is not attracted in the case of compassionate appointment and it is in respect of ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment. It is further submitted that the eligibility criteria for compassionate appointment is Para 5 namely eligibility in which the clauses imposed in the Para 17 has not been reiterated so as to take note of Para 17 in respect of compassionate appointment, therefore, Para 17 is restricted to only ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment and not for either of the scheme. Therefore, decision of the respondent in not providing compassionate appointment to the petitioner is contrary to the aforesaid clause of the Circular dated 03.08.2015 in so far as compassionate appointment.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-bank resisted the petitioner’s contention and submitted that for the purpose of compassionate appointment the respondent-bank was required to take note of general income criteria stated in Para 17.1 of the Circular dated 03.08.2015 and it is in respect of compassionate appointment, therefore, there is no lacuna in not providing com passionate appointment to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the respondent-bank relied on Hon’ble Apex Court decisions in the case of State of Himachal Pradesh & Anr. vs. Shashi Kumar reported in (2019) 3 SCC 653. The relevant paragraphs 19, 30, 31, 32& 33 read as under:-.

    “19. The policy in the present case which was formulated on 18-1-1990 categorically speaks of providing employment assistance to dependants of government servants who have died while in service, “leaving their families in indigent circumstances”. The policy, in other words, is designed to meet the needs of those families where the death of a government servant has left them in indigent circumstances, requiring immediate me

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top