Back
2008 Supreme(Raj) 927
(Supreme Court)
Honble C.K. THAKKER, J. Honble D.K. JAIN, J.
General Manager, State Bank of India & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
Anju Jain - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5224 of 2008
Decided On : August 25, 2008
U.U. Lalit, Senior Advocate (Sanjay Kapur, Shubhra Kapur, Rajiv Kumar and Arti Singh, Advocates, for Appellants; V.N. Ganpule, Senior Advocate (Naresh Kr. Gaur and Ashok Kr. Singh, Advocates), for Respondent
Headnote:(a) Service Matters – Appointment on compassionate ground – Considering past conduct of deceased employee – Whether a relevant consideration ? – Held – Appointment on compassionate ground is a concession and not a right – Employer can decide by way of policy to refuse appointment to dependants of a deceased employee who had been punished for a misconduct – Such refusal does not amount to double jeopardy or violation of principles of natural justice.(Paras 31 to 34 & 36)
¼d½ lsok ekeys & vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr & e`rd ds Hkwrdkfyu vkpj.k ij fopkj djuk & D;k ;g ,d lqlaxr ckr gS\ & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr ,d fj;k;r gS u fd ,d vf/kdkj & fu;ksDrk ml e`rd deZpkjh ds vkfJr dks fu;qfDr nsus ls badkj djus dks uhfr ds tfj;s fofufpr dj ldrk gS ftls nqjkpj.k ds fy, nf.Mr fd;k x;k Fkk & ,slh eukgh nksgjs lak; ;k uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)kUrksa ds mYya?ku dh Js.kh esa ugha vkrhA ¼in la[;k 31 ls 34 o 36½
(b) Constitution of India, Art. 226 – Writ of Mandamus – High Court issued direction to the Bank to appoint the writ petitioner within one month – Held – A writ of mandamus can be issued directing an authority to consider an appointment but appointment as such can not be directed.(Para 37) Appeal allowed.
¼[k½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku] vuqPNsn 226 & ijeknsk ;kfpdk & ,d ekg ds Hkhrj ;kfpdk izkFkhZ dks fu;qDr djus gsrq mPp U;k;ky; us cSad dks funsZk tkjh fd;s & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ijeknsk ;kfpdk fdlh izkf/kdkjh dks fu;qfDr ij fopkj djus gsrq funsZk nsus ds fy, tkjh dh tk ldrh gS ysfdu ,slh fu;qfDr gsrq vknsk ugha fn;k tk ldrkA vihy Lohdkj dhA ¼in la[;k 37½
(2). The present appeal is filed by the General Manager, State Bank of India (`the State Bank for short) and others against judgment and order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad on March 2, 2006 in C.M.W.P. No. 45006 of 2001 and confirmed by the Division Bench of the said Court on April 25, 2007 in Special Appeal No. 390 of 2006. By the said order, the High Court allowed the petition filed by Smt. Anju Jain, writ-petitioner (respondent herein) and directed the State Bank to provide her appointment on compassionate ground on the death of her husband.
(3). Shortly stated the facts of the case are that Mr. Jain, husband of the respondent- writ petitioner was working as Assistant with the State Bank at Karhall Branch, Agra in the State of U.P. In September, 1995, he was placed under suspension and charge-sheeted for having committed gross misconduct of embezzlement/ misappropriation. Departmental inquiry was instituted against him wherein he was found guilty.
(4). In 1996, on the basis of findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and accepted by the Disciplinary Authority, major punishment was imposed on him by which his basic pay was reduced by two stages and five annual future increments were also stopped with cumulative effect. Husband of the writ-petitioner, however, died on January 25, 2000 while in service in the State Bank.
(5). The State Bank had framed a scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds for dependents of deceased employees/employees retired on medical grounds with effect from January 01, 1979. It was modified from time to time. At the relevant time, when the husband of the writ-petitioner died (January 25, 2000), the policy as amended with effect from January 01, 1998 was in force.
(6). In accordance with the policy of giving employment on compassionate ground to dependents of a deceased employee, the writ- petitioner, as the widow of the deceased applied to the State Bank in March, 2000. The competent authority of the Bank considered the case of the writ petitioner and keeping in view the punishment imposed on the deceased employee, it rejected the prayer of the writ petitioner and informed her that no such appointment could be given to her. A representation was made by the writ petitioner but it was also rejected on July 16, 2001.
(7). Aggrieved by the action of the State Bank, the writ petitioner filed a petition in the High Court by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution. A Single Judge of the High Court, after referring to the scheme of giving appointment on compassionate grounds to dependents of deceased employees and also considering the case of the writ-petitioner, allowed the petition holding that the writ petitioner was entitled to the benefit of appointment on compassionate ground as the dependent of the deceased employee. The said right, which had accrued in her favour, could not be taken away by the State Bank only on the ground of misconduct on the part of her husband for which he was punished, observed the Single Judge. Accordingly, a direction was issued by the Single Judge to appoint the writ petitioner.
(8). The State Bank, being aggrieved by the said order, approached the Division Bench of the High Court by filing intra- Court appeal but the Division Bench also confirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge and dismissed the appeal. The said order is challenged in the present appeal.
(9). Notice was issued on May 17, 2007 and after hearing the parties, the Registry was directed to place the matter for final hearing on May 01, 2008. We have accordingly heard learned counsel for the parties.
(10). The learned counsel for the appellant- Bank contended that the orders passed by the High Court are illegal, improper and contrary to law. It was submitted that appointment on compassionate ground is never considered to be a right of a dependent of deceased employee. It is a benefit granted to a dependent of an employee who dies i
