Compassionate appointment should be considered based on the financial and other circumstances of the dependent family, taking into account terminal benefits, investments, and total monthly family income.

JUDGMENT

Partha Sarathi Sen, J. - In this writ petition as filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the writ petitioner has challenged the vires of the letter no. BGVB/HO/HR/3300/2021 dated 06.09.2021 whereby and whereunder the respondent nos. 2 to 5 observed that the present writ petitioner is not fit for being appointed on compassionate ground.

2. The facts leading to filing of the writ petition is discussed hereunder in a nutshell.

3. One Sk. Faijudin, the deceased father of the present writ petitioner took his last breath on 04.08.2020, when he was employed as an Office Assistant in Bangiya Gramin Vikash Bank (hereinafter referred to as the said 'Bank') leaving behind his wife and four sons including the present writ petitioner. After the death of the father of the present writ petitioner, the writ petitioner made an application before the bank for providing him an appointment under compassionate ground and on such application an enquiry was conducted by the Branch Manager of the said bank wherein it was found that all the legal heirs of the deceased including the writ petitioner were unemployed and were dependent on the deceased. Subsequently on 19.03.2021, the respondent no.3 being the Chief Manager of the said Bank under cover of his letter dated 19.03.2021 informed the writ petitioner that he cannot be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. Challenging the said communication of the respondent no.2 the present writ petitioner filed a separate writ petition being WPA no. 10640/21 which was disposed of on 01.07.2021 whereby and whereunder the decision dated 19.03.2021 of the bank authority was set aside with a direction to the respondent no.2 i.e. General Manager of the said bank to consider the application for compassionate appointment of the present writ petitioner in terms of the Clause 2 and Clause 5 of the Scheme upon hearing the petitioner and upon considering the financial condition of the deceased employee. In view of such direction of this Hon'ble Court a fresh enquiry was conducted and on conclusion of same, impugned regret letter dated 06.09.2021, was issued in favour of the present writ petitioner.

4. In support of the instant writ petition learned advocate for the writ petitioner at the very outset draws attention of this Court to the impugned letter dated 06.09.2021 as written by General Manage (HR) of the said bank. Attention of this Court is also drawn to the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground in the said bank especially, Clause 2 and Clause 5. It is argued that the respondent bank while issuing the impugned regret letter dated 06.09.2021 did not adhere to the aforementioned Scheme as well as to the order dated 01.07.2021 as passed by this Hon'ble Court in WPA No.10640/21. It is contended further that in the impugned letter dated 06.09.2021 the officials of the respondent bank had assigned no reason as to why they have found the family members of the father of the present writ petitioner is not indigent. It is thus argued that the impugned finding of the respondent bank authority dated 06.09.2021 is without any logic and perverse and the same may be quashed with a direction to the respondent bank to issue letter of appointment in favour of the present writ petitioner on compassionate ground.

5. Learned advocate for the respondent bank however opposes such contention. In course of his submission he draws attention of this Court to the impugned letter dated 06.09.2021 and to the minutes of personal hearing of the writ petitioner as held on 01.09.2021. Attention of this Court is also drawn to page no.5 of the affidavit-in-opposition. It is contended that on conjoint perusal of the said minutes and page no. 5 of the affidavit-in-opposition, it would reveal that the family members of the father of the writ petitioner have obtained huge amount of terminal benefits as well as other benefits and thus the respondent bank is very much justified in holding that the case of the present