The main legal point established in the judgment is that the rejection of a compassionate appointment request must be based on valid and reasoned grounds, considering the financial distress of the petitioner's family and in line with the parameters of the Scheme.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records pertaining to the impugned order in HR.MPRD.F-1575:1477-I: 2022 dated 09.03.2022 on the file of the first respondent and quash the same as illegal and consequently directing the first respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in any suitable post in the first respondent Bank within the period stipulated by this Court.)

1.The present Writ Petition has been filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned order, dated 09.03.2022 on the file of the first respondent and consequently to direct the first respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate grounds in any suitable post in the first respondent Bank within the period stipulated by this Court.

2. The petitioner''s father worked as a Head Cashier II cum Clerk at the third respondent Bank. Unexpectedly, while in service, he passed away on 04.10.2014. He was survived by his wife and three sons, of which, the youngest son is the petitioner. The petitioner''s mother also away on 14.07.2020. Immediately, after the demise of the petitioner''s father, the petitioner approached the respondents 1 to 3 in person seeking compassionate appointment, since his family was in financial distress. The petitioner''s family was running on hand loans of relatives. The petitioner''s elder brothers, namely, D.Raj Kumar and D.Packia Raj, had given their no objection certificate for the petitioner''s appointment based on compassionate grounds. The petitioner completed the Degree of B.A Tamil in the year 2015 and he had been the breadwinner of his family. At the time of the death of the petitioner''s father, the petitioner''s elder brother was working in a private firm temporarily in abroad and he was living separately with his own family consisting of his wife and child. The petitioner''s younger brother was pursuing Law at that point of time. The petitioner''s family had incurred heavy debts, which was already expended towards treatment of the prolonged illness suffered by his father. Under such circumstances, the petitioner approached the respondents 1 to 3 seeking appointment on compassionate grounds.

3. The petitioner''s family belonged to SC Community living in a remote Village and his mother was born deaf and dumb and she was continuously suffering from various ailments. As a result of which, she passed away on 14.07.2020. The meagre family pension to a tune of around Rs.10,000/- was not sufficient even for taking care of the petitioner''s mother and her medical expenses. Finally, since the petitioner''s personal request were not heeded to by the respondents 1 to 3, the petitioner made a representation on 17.03.2015 seeking appointment under compassionate grounds. However, vide letters dated 02.04.2016 and 09.09.2016 from the Central Office of the third respondent Bank, the petitioner''s application was disposed of denying the compassionate appointment stating that taking into account the income of the family from all sources, his request for compassionate appointment was not considered by the competent authority. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed a Writ Petition in W.P(MD)No.2925 of 2018. This Court, vide order, dated 16.12.2021, after elaborate discussions allowed the aforesaid Writ Petition and the operative portion of the same is extracted as follows:-

“16. The rejection of the petitioner''s request is arbitrary, cryptic and indicates absolutely no application of mind. The impugned order is thus set aside. The petitioner''s application for compassionate appointment shall be considered afresh, bearing in mind all parameters as discussed above, and in line with the ratio of the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court referred to above and Clause 10 of the Scheme.

17. A speaking order be passed upon the representation of the petitioner within six week