Back
2004 Supreme(All) 790
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R.B.Misra
CHANDRAWALI DEVI
Versus
STATE BANK OF INDIA
Decided On : 22 April 2004
C. M. W. P. No. 49817 of 1999
Navin Sinha, S.C.TIWARI, Vipin Sinha,
Headnote:
COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - U. P. RECRUITMENT OF DEPENDENT OF GOVERNMENT SERVANT DYING IN HARNESS RULES 1974 - SCHEME FRAMED BY STATE BANK OF INDIA - FINANCIAL CONDITION OF FAMILY - CONSIDERATION OF FACTORS - APPOINTMENT IN PUBLIC SERVICES - OPEN INVITATION OF APPLICATIONS AND MERIT - EXCEPTIONS - PENURIOUS FAMILY OF DECEASED EMPLOYEE - OBJECT OF GRANTING COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - SUDDEN CRISIS - NOT TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT - APPOINTMENT TO BE IN CONSONANCE WITH RULES - COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT NOT DE HORS THE RULES - APPOINTMENT TO BE IN CLASS III OR CLASS IV POSTS - NO OTHER POSTS ARE EXPECTED OR REQUIRED - COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT BASED ON DESCENT - NOT PERMISSIBLE - CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH NEGATIVE NECESSITY OF COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT - WIDOW OF DECEASED LIVING WITH HUSBANDS BROTHER AS MAN AND WIFE - IF DISENTITLED - WIDOW PROVIDED WITH COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT AND THE PRAYER OF BROTHER NOT TO BE ALLOWED - COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT FOR SON OF INCAPACITATED FATHER - MAJOR BROTHERS CLAIM FOR APPOINTMENT CLAIMING TO BE MEMBER OF THE FAMILY OF THE DECEASED - COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT TO THE DEPENDANT OF CASUAL OR AD HOC EMPLOYEE OR APPRENTICE - DEPENDANT OF WORK CHARGED EMPLOYEE UNDER DIE-IN-HARNESS SCHEME OF MANIPUR - NO TIME-LIMIT FOR MAKING THE CLAIM - IF BELATED PETITION ENTERTAINABLE - HIGH COURT OR TRIBUNAL CANNOT DIRECT THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE SUPERANNUARY POST TO MAKE APPOINTMENT ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND - POLICY DECISION OF THE GOVERNMENT TO APPOINT CANDIDATES ON COMPASSIONATE GROUND IN CLASS IV POSTS ONLY IRRESPECTIVE OF THEIR QUALIFICATIONS- IF CAN BE CHALLENGED - SCOPE OF HIGH COURTS AND TRIBUNALS POWER TO ORDER COMPASSIONATE APPOINTMENT
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, widow of a deceased employee of State Bank of India, sought compassionate appointment under U. P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules 1974 and scheme framed by State Bank of India. Her application was rejected on the ground that her financial condition was not indigent.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment. Compassionate appointment cannot be made de hors the rules. Appointment to be in consonance with rules. Compassionate appointment not de hors the rules. Appointment to be in Class III or Class IV posts - no other posts are expected or required. Compassionate appointment based on descent - not permissible. Circumstances which negative necessity of compassionate appointment. Widow of deceased living with husbands brother as man and wife - if disentitled. Widow provided with compassionate appointment and the prayer of brother not to be allowed. Compassionate appointment for son of incapacitated father. Major brothers claim for appointment claiming to be member of the family of the deceased. Compassionate appointment to the dependant of casual or ad hoc employee or apprentice. Dependant of Work charged employee under Die-in-Harness Scheme of Manipur. No time-limit for making the claim - if belated petition entertainable. High Court or Tribunal cannot direct the authority to create superannuary post to make appointment on compassionate ground. Policy decision of the Government to appoint candidates on compassionate ground in Class IV posts only irrespective of their qualifications- if can be challenged. Scope of High Courts and Tribunals power to order compassionate appointment.
Issues: Whether the petitioner is entitled to compassionate appointment under U. P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules 1974 and scheme framed by State Bank of India.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment as her financial condition was not indigent. The object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment. Compassionate appointment cannot be made de hors the rules.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed.
Heard Sri S. C. Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Vipin Sinha, learned counsel for the respondents.
In this petition prayer has been made for issuance of writ of certiorari to quash the order dated 6-9- 1999 passed by Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Branch Office Machhli Shahar, Jaunpur with a further prayer for issuance of mandamus commanding the respondents to provide a suitable job to the Class-IV in place of her husband who died on 29-5-1998.
2. According to the petitioner after the death of her husband, late Sri Mohan Lal Gupta while working as Watchman Cash Coolie in State Bank of India, Branch Office, Machhli Shahar Jaunpur died on 25-9-1998 leaving behind the petitioner who received the following amount after the death of her husband as below:
3. Rs. 1,27000 as Provident Fund and Rs. 60,000/-as Gratuity. Out of the total amount Rs. 1,87,000 for payment to the petitioner, Rs. 14,638 was deducted as consumer loan, Rs. 1,750 was deducted as festival advance, Rs. 59,091 was deducted as Housing Loan Rs. 44,229. 65 was deducted on housing loan i. e. , an amount of Rs. 1,39,709 in total was deducted from Rs. 1,87,000 and thereafter Rs. 20,000 is co- operative loan which is also to be paid by petitioner.
According to the averments made in para 12 of the writ petition, out of Rs. 1,87,000/-, Rs. 1,39,709 was of loan about Rs. 48,000 remained out of which after paying the loan to the private persons taken in festival ceremony of petitioners husband as well as some other expenses, no amount is balance with petitioner. The petitioner has submitted that she gets pension of Rs. 1,368 which is not sufficient and there is no other source of livelihood, whereas the petitioners husband was getting Rs. 6,200 per month in that position the petitioners family was always not comfortable and was living in scarcity. However, the petitioner submitted an application for getting employment on compassionate ground under U. P. Recruitment of Dependent of Government Servant Dying in Harness Rules 1974 in short called "rules 1974" and scheme framed by the State Bank of India which was rejected on 6-9-1999.
4. In the counter affidavit it has been accepted that the petitioner is getting Rs. 1,368 per month as a pensionary benefits. It has also been indicated that during life time of husband, loans were taken for purchase of consumer items and for construction of a house. The house has also been constructed, however, purchasing of luxury items is not necessary and cannot be considered for giving deployment. It has been indicated in the Supplementary counter affidavit that the object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis due to the death of the bread-winner. The mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such a livelihood. The object is to other compassionate appointment only when the Bank is satisfied that the financial condition of the family is such that, but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis. This will apply mutatis-mutandis to the scheme for appointment of dependants of employees who retire on medical grounds.
5. According to the respondents scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds for dependants of deceased employees retired on medical grounds which have taken into consideration for determining the financial condition of the family is below:
Appointment in the public services are made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. However, exceptions are made in favour of dependants of employees dying in harness and leaving their family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Determining the financial condition of the family is, therefore, an important criterion for deciding the proposal for compassionate appointment. The following factors should be taken into account of determining the financial condition of the family:
(i) Family pension.
(ii) Gratuity
