Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYANPRASAD, ARUN KUMAR RAI, JJ.
Avinash Tamsoy S/o Late Parmanand Tamsoy – Appellant
Versus
The General Manager, State Bank of India, Patna – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 57 of 2023
Decided On : 30-04-2024
(A) Limitation Act, 1963 - Section 5 - Compassionate appointment - The appeal against the rejection of compassionate appointment due to prior receipt of ex-gratia amount - The court upheld the dismissal of the writ petition, emphasizing that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and must adhere to the governing scheme. (Paras 16, 24, 26)
(B) Constitutional Law - Articles 14 and 16 - The court reiterated that appointments on compassionate grounds must comply with constitutional provisions and cannot be granted arbitrarily. (Paras 16, 24)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought compassionate appointment following the death of his father, a bank employee, but was denied due to the prior receipt of an ex-gratia payment by the family.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the learned Single Judge correctly dismissed the writ petition as the petitioner had no entitlement for compassionate appointment after the ex-gratia payment was received.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to compassionate appointment after the family had received an ex-gratia payment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that compassionate appointment is not a right and must follow the established scheme, which allows either an ex-gratia payment or appointment, but not both.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
ORDER :
I.A. No. 1884 of 2024
1. The instant interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 174 days in preferring the instant appeal.
2. Considering the reason assigned in the interlocutory application, the delay of 174 days in preferring the instant appeal is hereby condoned.
3. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 1884 of 2024 stands allowed.
L.P.A. No. 57 of 2023
Prayer
4. The instant Letters Patent Appeal filed under Clause 10 is directed against order dated 14.07.2022 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.S. No. 3148 of 2020 whereby and whereunder, the request made by the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground due to the death of his father in harness, has been rejected, by respondent No. 3, having been refused to interfere by the learned Single Judge.
Facts
5. The brief facts as per the pleading made in the petition which reads for the event of factual aspects as under:
(ii) The father of the petitioner had joined the service of the State Bank of India Branch of Manendragarh in 1987 and from there he was transferred to Regional Office, Shahdol, in the month the June, 1992 and remained there till July, 1998. Thereafter, the deceased employee was transferred to Jagannathpur Branch and remained there till July, 2005. Thereafter, the deceased employee was transferred to Tonto Branch of State Bank of India and he remained there till February, 2010 and from there he was transferred to State Bank of India, Chaibasa Branch and thereafter he was transferred to Noamundi Branch in the year, 2014 and he remained there till his sad demise.
(iii) At the time of death of the father of the petitioner, he was working as Special Assistant in the Branch of Noamundi, in the State Bank of India and while working he had a severe heart attack and as such he expired on 03.11.2018.
(iv) The service of the deceased employee was regularized by a memorandum given by Branch Manager of Manendragarh on 21.06.1988. The appellant’s father was proved an I-card of State Bank of India wherein his designation has been written as Special Assistant from the SBI, Noamundi Branch.
(v) After his death widow of the deceased employee namely Sunita Tamsoy has filed a representation on 16.01.2019 before the Regional Manager, SBI, Regional Office, Golmuri Branch wherein she has requested to give employment to her son Sri Avinash Tamsoy (petitioner herein) in any status on the compassionate ground.
(vi) The petitioner has again filed a representation to the Regional Manager, SBI, Regional Office, Golmuri Branch on 14.09.2020 for considering his case for compassionate appointment.
6. It is evident from the factual aspect that writ petitioner who claims himself B. Tech degree holder had made an application for consideration of his claim for appointment on compassionate ground due to demise of his father in harness who was working in the Respondent No. 1-Bank.
7. The request was made by the way of representation, but no relief was granted for his appointment on compassionate ground.
8. The petitioner being aggrieved has approached to this Court by filing writ petition being W.P.S. No. 3148 of 2020.
9. The respondent Bank has appeared and had taken stand inter alia in the counter affidavit that as per the scheme, which was invoked at the time of death of father of the writ petitioner, the mother of the writ petitioner had already taken the ex-gratia amount to the tune of Rs. 6,00,000/- (Six Lakh) on 29.03.2019. This fact is well within the knowledge of the petitioner, since he was witness to that transaction. The grou
Compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a right and must adhere to the governing scheme, especially after an ex-gratia payment has been received.
The right to compassionate appointment is a concession given under the scheme and is not a source of recruitment. The claim for compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule and must ....
Compassionate appointment lacks entitlement; eligibility hinges on defined criteria and discretionary nature of policies.
FAMILY PENSION - Grant of family pension or payment of terminal benefits cannot be treated as a substitute for providing employment assistance. The High Court also observed that it is not the case of....
Compassionate appointments must be made promptly following a breadwinner's death; delayed applications undermine their purpose.
Compassionate appointment is an exception and not a matter of right, and should be considered within a specific time frame as per the prevailing policy at the time of consideration.
Point of law: compassionate appointment could not be denied on the ground that family benefit scheme was available, in as much as it was not a substitute for compassionate appointment, directed the r....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
