M. KATJU, U. PANDEY, JJ.

( 1 ) THIS special appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the learned single judge dated May 20, 2003. We have heard Sri navin Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri B. D. Mandhyan learned counsel for the respondents. We find no merit in this appeal. The facts and circumstances have been stated in detail in the judgment of the learned single judge and hence we need not repeat the same.

( 2 ) SRI Vipin Sinha has submitted that the widow of the deceased was getting family pension of Rs. 3421/- per month which has been reduced to Rs. 1,620/- per month from february 1, 2002. In our opinion this is clearly insufficient to support the family.

( 3 ) THE deceased was a clerk in the Bank and this family pension would clearly not meet the needs of the widow and her family members particularly in these days when prices and cost of living have risen very high.

( 4 ) THE claim of the respondents in this 10 appeal was rejected by the Bank by order dated april 9, 1999 on the ground that the financial condition of the family appeared to be sound (vide Annexure-CA-1 to the writ petition ). While rejecting the case of the writ petitioner 15 hypothetical source of income was taken into consideration, but it was not considered that the saving was spent initially for treatment of the father of the writ petitioner, and the meagre retirement benefits on the marriage of the daughter and treatment of the mother.

( 5 ) MOREOVER, we find that the Bank wrongly held that the writ petitioner has five bighas of land, whereas the Bank has itself sought advice of the local counsel who after perusal of the record found only 1. 5 Bighas (. 077 hectares) which are not arable as it is adjoining the pond (vide Annexures 9 and 10 to the writ petition ).

( 6 ) THE widow of the deceased has also : developed "dysfunctional Uterine Bleeding with anxiety Neurosis with Hypertension ", and she has undergone surgical operation for which loan was taken from the Bank. A certificate of illness is Annexure-3 to the writ petition.

( 7 ) IN Ram Piyarey v. State Bank of India 2001 (2) UPLBEC 1575, this Court held that the payment of family pension and dues of the deceased cannot be a ground for rejecting the claim for compassionate appointment. We entirely agree with this view.

( 8 ) THE same view was taken by a Division bench of this Court in State Bank of India v. Rani Piyarey 2001 (2) ESC 876. That view was again followed by this Court in Smt. Padma pathak v. Managing Director, Punjab National bank 2003 (1) SAC 500. Writ Petition No. 37817 of 2001 decided on March 3, 2003.

( 9 ) IN Ajay Kumar Shevdy v. Chief Security commissioner 2004 (2) UPLBEC 1503, this court held that if the application for compassionate appointment was filed within time then merely because the applicant was unnecessarily dragged from pillar to post for getting employment and this caused that delay he should not be denied the appointment. We agree with this view.

( 10 ) SIMILAR view was taken by this Court in Smt. Anju Mishra v. General Manager, kanpur 2004 (2) ESC 759.

( 11 ) FOR the reasons given above this appeal is dismissed.

.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document