Compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and should be considered to provide succor to the dependants of the deceased employee facing immediate financial crisis.

JUDGMENT

1. The appeal is arising out of an order dated 5 th September, 2019 in a writ petition filed by the appellants for compassionate appointment. The writ application was dismissed on 5 th September, 2019.

2. One Sukdev Prasad Singh was an employee of the bank. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him in the year 2012. The proceeding was decided ex parte as the employee did not attend the said proceeding in spite of repeated notices. The bank imposed the penalty of compulsory retirement with superannuation benefit by an order dated 27 th February, 2013.

3. The petitioner no.1 being the spouse of the employee intimated the bank that the employee went missing since 2 nd February, 2007. A GDE was lodged in the concerned police station on 28 th May, 2007. After passing of the final order in the disciplinary proceeding, the petitioner no.1 requested the bank for releasing the terminal benefits of the employee and also to give compassionate appointment in favour of her son, being the petitioner no.2 herein.

4. By a letter dated 19 th April, 2014, the petitioner was requested to obtain and submit a Civil Death Certificate of the employee for settlement of his terminal benefits. The petitioners filed a Suit before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Alipore praying for a declaration of death of the employee.

5. The learned Trial Judge dismissed the Suit on contest. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Alipore which was also dismissed.

6. The petitioners thereafter filed a writ petition before this Court praying for a direction upon the respondent authorities for disbursal of the terminal benefits of the employee and for providing compassionate appointment to the son of the employee. The said writ petition was disposed of by an order dated 4 th January, 2019 by directing the bank to take a reasoned decision on the representation made by the petitioner within a specified time.

7. In compliance of the order passed by the Court, the bank considered the prayer of the petitioners, whereby the bank took a decision to settle the terminal benefits of the employee considering his date of death as 28 th May, 2007 (presumed) that is the date on which the General Diary was lodged with the concerned police station.

8. The prayer for compassionate appointment of the petitioner no.2 was however rejected on the ground that there was no provision to extend compassionate appointment during the relevant time.

9. Being aggrieved, the petitioners filed the instant writ application praying for a direction upon the bank to provide compassionate appointment to the petitioner No.2.

10. The writ petitioner contended before the learned Single Judge that the date of death of the concerned employee was considered by the bank as 28 th May, 2007, then the scheme which was in vogue on the date of death of the said deceased employee should be taken into account for consideration of the prayer of the petitioner for giving appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground.

11. The petitioners submit that the scheme for compassionate appointment came into effect in the year 2014 and the said scheme was very much in vogue when the prayer of the petitioner No.2 for compassionate appointment was taken up for consideration by the bank.

12. The petitioners relied upon the decision delivered by the Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in the matter of D.S. Nakara & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1983) 1 SCC 305 on the point of permissibility of fixing up a cut-off date for extending the benefit to the employees.

13. The petitioners seek for a direction upon the respondent authorities for consideration of the claim for compassionate appointment on the basis of the circular that was in vogue at the time of consideration of the application made by the petitioner No.2.

14. The learned advocate for the bank submitted a report in the form of an affidavit wherein it has been mentione