The financial assessment of the deceased employee's family is a crucial factor in determining eligibility for compassionate appointment, and must be conducted in accordance with the compassionate appointment policy.

ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition assailing the Memo dated 07.10.2020 passed by the Assistant General Manager, Canara Bank, by which the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected.

2. The brief facts reflected from the record are that the petitioner's father was working as Peon in the respondent bank, who expired on 26.08.2019. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 13.05.2020 and the same was rejected vide memo dated 07.10.2020.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that as per scheme of grant of compassionate appointment dated 20.03.2015 which was applicable at the time of death of the petitioner's father various procedures have to be followed while considering the application for grant of compassionate appointment. The Clause 19 of the scheme provides general rules which provides procedure to be followed and as per sub-clause 7 of the said Clause 19 while considering the case of grant of compassionate appointment a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities including the benefits received under the various scheme mentioned above and all other relevant factors such as presence of an earning member, size of the family etc.

4. From bare perusal of this Clause it is evident that bank has to assess the financial condition of the deceased employees family after taking into the benefits which have been payable to the family as per the welfare schemes framed by the bank in this regard.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that from bare perusal of Annexure-P/1, it is crystal clear that the bank has not examined the case of the petitioner as per sub-clause 7 of Clause 19 of the scheme.

6. The learned counsel for the Bank would submit that the bank in the return filed before this Court has submitted the details of the benefits which have been paid to the family member and also details of the benefits which have been paid. From the return it is reflected that the deceased is having a house property valued at Rs.30 lacs. It has also been mentioned that dependents have received Rs.16,29,575/- and getting family pension of Rs.15,649/- since April, 2020. It has also been stated that family members of the deceased have received Rs.6,25,888.37/- and Rs.6,23,293.15/- towards provident fund. The dependents have also received Rs.3,29,268/-. In the return it has also been mentioned that deceased family members have cleared Rs.1,72,431/- towards loan for purchasing of the vehicle. Thus, the deceased family members have sufficient income and their application has rightly been rejected by respondents through Annexure-P/1 which is legal, justified and does not warrant interference by this Court. In support of his submission, he has referred to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of State Bank of India vs. Jaspal Kaur, reported in 2007 Volume 9 SCC 571 and would pray dismissal of the writ petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents annexed with this petition.

8. From the pleadings of the parties it is not in dispute that the family members of the deceased employee have received financial benefits through gratuity, leave encashment, provident fund, family pension, Life Insurance Corporation and financial consideration may be a ground for denying the compassionate appointment as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 5111 of 2022 in case of Central Bank of India vs. Nitin decided on 03.08.2022 wherein, the Hon’ble Supreme Court after examining the various judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held at Paragraph 19, 20 and 21 as under:-

“19. In our view, the Division Bench patently erred in arriving at the finding that whether the family was indigent or not could not be a ground for refusing compassionate appointment to a candidate who was