The main legal point established in the judgment is that the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground should be interpreted to consider the financial condition of the deceased employee's family and the need for immediate assistance, and the authority is required to make decisions strictly in accordance with the stipulations of the scheme.

JUDGMENT :

Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.

I.A. No. 6225 of 2023

1. The instant application has been filed for condonation of delay of 60 days in filing the appeal.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. In view of reason assigned in the application, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

4. Accordingly, I.A. No. 6225 of 2023 stands disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 14 of 2023

5. The instant intra-court appeal, preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, is directed against the order/judgment dated 19.10.2022 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No.5830 of 2019 by which the claim of the writ petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected by the authority on the ground that the day when the deceased employee, i.e., the father of the writ petitioner, had died, there was no scheme for appointment on compassionate ground.

6. Brief facts of the case as per the pleadings made in the writ proceeding, which are required to be enumerated herein, read as under :-

7. Father of the petitioner, namely, Vishwanath Singh, was initially appointed on 07.01.1986 on the post of Office Assistant in Vananchal Gramin Bank and he passed away on 13.09.2017 during his service tenure after serving under the respondent Bank for 31 years 8 months. It has been stated in the writ petition that several time, recommendations were sent by the Chainpur Branch of respondent Bank to the Regional Office and the petitioner also made representations several times, but the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been considered by the respondent Bank. For purposes of claiming compassionate appointment, petitioner has referred to and relied upon the Revised Scheme for Appointment on Compassionate Ground / Payment of Ex-gratia in Vananchal Gramin Bank which was circulated vide Circular No.75/18-19 dated 18.03.2019. The respondents-Bank has filed a counter affidavit stating therein that the Bank has considered the representation of the petitioner and considering the fact that the since father of the petitioner had died in the year 2017, hence, his entitlement for compassionate appointment has to be considered as per the policy applicable at that period of time. The Circular No.73/08-09, dated 18.11.2008 was applicable at the time of death of father of the petitioner, i.e., 13.09.2017, therefore, he was governed under that scheme.

8. The learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, has dismissed the writ petition considering the facts of this case and the proposition of law, that the respondent Bank has considered the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner in the light of the scheme which was prevalent on the date of death of petitioner’s father and thus, has rightly rejected the claim, against which, the instant intra-court appeal has been preferred.

9. It appears from the factual aspect, as referred hereinabove based upon the pleading made on behalf of the writ petitioner, that the father of the petitioner, namely, Vishwanath Singh, was initially appointed on 07.01.1986 on the post of Office Assistant in Vananchal Gramin Bank and while working as such for about 32 years he died on 13.09.2017. After his death, the retiral benefits was paid. Thereafter, the Branch Manager, Vananchal Gramin Bank, Chainpur Branch sent a recommendation letter to Regioinal Manager Region-III, Daltonganj, Palamanu to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground. The petitioner also sent representation to General Secretary, Vananchal Gramin Bank, but the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was not considered by the respondent Bank. The Vananchal Gramin Bank issued a letter dated 18.01.2018 informing the petitioner that since the deceased-employee did not die in violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity or his death was not within five years of his first appointment or died before reaching the age of 30 years. Therefore, as per prevalent rule the bank did not accede to the claim