ORDER :

1. The petitioner has filed the present petition against the inaction of the respondents by which respondent authorities have denied the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment and he is directed to accept the ex-gratia lump sump amount in lieu of appointment on the ground of compassionate appointment.

2. Facts of the case, in short, are that petitioner’s father late Puniram Baghel was working as Field Officer with Chhattisgarh Gramin Bank, Branch Tendukona (Mahasamund), who expired on 30.04.2005. After death of his father, the petitioner has applied for compassionate appointment before the respondents by contending that after death of his father, he did not have any means of livelihood, he has liability to lookafter his family members and there is no earning member in his family. Therefore, his claim for grant of compassionate appointment may be considered. But the respondents have not considered his claim, thereafter, the petitioner filed an application for grant of compassionate appointment 30.12.2007. The petitioner again filed a representation 28.09.2006 and on 14.06.2007 but till date the respondents have not given any response and not decided the application of the petitioner. The petitioner has submitted no objection certificate of his family members before the respondents bank and thereafter the respondent bank wrote a letter to the petitioner to accept ex-gratia lump sum amount in lieu of compassionate appointment vide its letter dated 25.05.2007. Again, the bank wrote a letter to the petitioner to fill up the form and deposit the same within 15 days to the respondent bank for ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment as reflected vide memo dated 31.10.2007.

3. Again on 30.04.2013, the petitioner filed a representation before the respondents stating that if no action is taken for grant of compassionate appointment then he will approach the Court of law. The respondents authorities have considered the application and vide letter 17.08.2013 directed him to accept ex-gratia amount, which will be payable after verification of the facts of his case. Thus, the respondents have completely ousted the petitioner from the zone of consideration for compassionate appointment in a very arbitrary manner and rejected the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment directing him to accept the ex-gratia amount, therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that petitioner’s father expired on 30.04.2005 and new policy for grant of ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment has been introduced on 18.05.2017 i.e. after death of petitioner’s father, therefore, his case should have been considered as per the policy prevailing on the date of death of petitioner’s father. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that respondents bank has provided compassionate appointment to the persons whose father expired when the policy of compassionate appointment was not in existence and new policy granting ex-gratia has been entroduced and implemented by the Bank, therefore, Bank cannot discriminate the petitioner and asked him to accept the ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment. This is the discrimination between similarly situated persons therefore, the action of the bank insisting for accepting ex-gratia needs to be interfered by this Court and direction be issued to the bank to consider his case for grant of compassionate appointment as per the policy prevailing on 30.04.2005. Learned counsel for the petitioner would further draw the attention of this Court to the memo dated 14.02.2012 (P/15) to demonstrate that the compassionate appointment has been granted to the member of deceased employee’s family on 14.02.2012 even after enforcement of new scheme. He would further submit that respondent bank on the one hand directing the petitioner to accept the ex-gratia amount denying his claim for compassiona