The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a compassionate and liberal application of employment schemes for dependents of deceased employees, the obligation to act judicially, and the necessity to provide reasons for administrative decisions.

Petitioner, widow of Suresh Chandra Pathak, claims appointment on compassionate ground under the scheme for employment of the dependents of the employees dying in harness (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme ).

2. It transpires from the record that the petitioners husband died on 6-4-1999 leaving behind four minor children and petitioner and on 20-4-1999 the petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment on the ground that she had no source of livelihood to fall back upon. The claim of the petitioner was rejected by order dated 30-9-2002, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, which is impugned in the writ petition. The laconic ground spelt out in the order is that the application of the petitioner did not find favour with the authorities.

3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner urged that the order does not contain any reason. It has not disclosed why and how petitioner was not found fit for appointment under the Scheme. He further urged that she has no source of livelihood. He further submitted that mere payment of certain amount towards the Provident Fund, Gratuity, Benevolent Fund, Leave Encashment and ex-gratia, Life Insurance cannot be a ground for rejection of appointment on compassionate ground. It is further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case where it is clear from the own report of the department that there was no earning member in the family that there was no source of income to fall back upon and the fact that there were four minor children dependent on the widow the petitioner was entitled to get employment.

4. Sri K. L. Grover, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Ramesh Singh appearing for the Bank urged that order was rightly passed in accordance with law and having regard to the spirit of the Scheme. However, he not draw attention to any material on record in order to show reasons justifying rejection of appointment on compassionate ground.

5. I have considered the arguments canvassed on behalf of the learned Counsels for the parties. The following facts emerge from the record.

6. According to the own report of the Bank submitted to the Deputy General Manager (Personnel), New Delhi dated 22-5-1999, Annexure-8 to the writ petition, Suresh Chandra Pathak died leaving behind the petitioner and four minor children and that he had put in 26 years of service on the date of death i. e. 6- 4-1999. The department vide Annexure-8 opined that petitioner was eligible for appointment under the Scheme. It would be borne out from the word yes marked against the column, which signifies that the petitioner was eligible for appointment under the scheme. What were the terminal dues paid to the widow of deceased may be excerpted below for consideration whether the authorities were justified in holding those dues to be sufficient means for the deceased family to keep the pot boiling.

Amount of Terminal Dues

a. PF (Employees/employers Contribution), Rs. 97,019. 38

b. Gratuity, Rs. 95,369. 00 c. Benevolent Fund, Rs. 40,000. 00 d. Leave Encashment, Rs. 61,080. 64 e. Ex-Gratia, Rs. 15,000. 00 f. Others, Rs. 5,000. 00 g. , Details of LIC, Rs. 15,352. 00 7. Besides the above, it is also indicated in the record that petitioner was having a self occupied residential house the cost of which has been assessed to the extent of Rs. two lacs. The report further spells out that there was no source of income to fall back upon. Indisputably, no member of the family has been in employment which fact is implied from the word nil in the column family pension payable.

8. Though all these materials are available on record, impugned order, Annexure-5 to the writ petition, it appears, has been passed mechanically sans application of mind by the authority to the most material and vital aspects and the application was rejected without assigning any reason. The order is quoted below :

"the matter has been examined by Head Office and the request made by the widow for employment to her in the bank on com