JUDGMENT :

ANANDA SEN, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for his appointment on compassionate ground.

2. The father of the petitioner went missing since 22.8.2001. Station diary was made. The petitioner thereafter applied for grant of compassionate appointment after expiry of seven years, which was rejected on the ground that there was no declaration about the civil death of the father of the petitioner. The petitioner, thereafter moved before the competent Court of jurisdiction by filing a suit which was numbered as Title Suit No. 118 of 2010. The suit was decreed on 26.3.2012 declaring civil death of Shiv Lal Rajak, the father of the petitioner. The petitioner again applied for compassionate appointment along with the copy of the said judgment but his application was again rejected on the ground that as per the Rules of the Bank, there is no provision to grant compassionate appointment in case of civil death. The said order was also challenged before this Court in W.P. (S) No. 6884 of 2013. This Court vide order dated 19.5.2015 set aside the aforesaid order and directed the District Level Compassionate Appointment Committee to consider the case of the petitioner and pass a fresh order. The authority thereafter considered the case of the petitioner and again dismissed the application of the petitioner vide order dated 13.7.2016 holding that the petitioner is non matric and/or has not passed Class-X, thus he cannot be appointed as per the Rules of the Bank. This order is also challenged by the petitioner.

3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order is bad as there is no requirement of matriculation for fresh appointed in the Bank for the post of peon. He argues that when there is no requirement for matriculation pass certificate during initial appointment then in case of compassionate appointment also there cannot be a minimum requirement of matriculation. He states that taking three different grounds on three different occasions the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment was rejected, which is absolutely illegal.

4. Counsel for the Bank submits that admittedly the petitioner is non-matriculate and has not passed Class-X thus he cannot be appointed and his case was considered by the District Level Compassionate Appointment Committee and after due consideration as per the Rules of the Bank, his case was rejected.

5. The fact of this case is admitted. It is also admitted that the father of the petitioner, who was an employee of Singhbhum Central Co-operative Bank, went mission from 22.8.2001. A Title Suit No. 118 of 2010 was registered for declaration that the father of the petitioner (Shiv Lal Rajak) being trace-less is no more alive and he may be declared as dead. The said suit was decreed in the year 2012. It is also admitted fact that the petitioner applied thrice for grant of his compassionate appointment, but his case was rejected on three different grounds.

6. The whole object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis which arises due to the sudden death of the sole breadwinner. Mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. This proposition has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Coalfields Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Others vs. Parden Oraon, 2021 SCC Online SC 299. Further in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Others, (1994) 4 SCC 138, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of reasonable period as the consideration of such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in the future. It was further held that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the family to get over the financial crisis that it faces at the time of the death of sole breadwinner. Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed or