Point of law: Whenever the Land Management Committee intends to admit any person to land under Section 195 or 197, it shall announce by beat of drum in the circle of the Gaon Sabha in which the land is situate at least seven days before the date of meeting for admission of land, the numbers of plots, their areas and the date on which admission thereto is to be made.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

2. The challenge in the present petition is to order of rejection of claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. The reason given therein is that the scheme of compassionate appointment was not available in the Bank on the date of death of the employee, i.e. father of the petitioner.

3. Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner's father who was working as Accounts Officer with the respondent Bank had died on 12.5.2018. As the salary of the petitioner's father was the only source of income of the family, the petitioner's mother moved an application dated 8.4.2019 for grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner herein with the consent of all other dependants of the deceased employee. The prayer of the petitioner's mother had wrongly been rejected by the order impugned though the scheme of compassionate appointment was available in the Bank, w.e.f 15.3.2019.

4. It is contended that on demand of the employees of the Public Sector Banks, the Government of India had approved the scheme of compassionate appointment and a communication dated 7.8.2014 was sent to all Public Sector Banks for adoption of the said scheme w.ef. 5.8.2014. It was further communicated by the letter dated 5.12.2014 issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance that the Banks can have both the options, i.e. to offer compassionate appointment or payment of lump sum ex-gratia amount. However, for providing any of the above two benefits, it is necessary that other conditions of compassionate appointment are met. In the light of the said communication, the Scheme of compassionate appointment became operative in all Public Sector Banks.

5. Thereafter, by the letter dated 3.11.2014, the National Bank for Agricultural Rural Development (NABARD) wrote to the Government of India to extend the scheme of compassionate appointment approved by it on 5.8.2014 to the Regional Rural Banks, they being Public Sector Banks established under the Regional Rural Banks Act, amended by Act No. 140 of 2015. The Government of India having realised discrimination to the employees of Regional Rural Banks extended the Scheme of compassionate appointment, approved by it for Public Sector Banks, to the Regional Rural Bank by means of the communication dated 31.12.2018. The Board of respondent Bank, however, had adopted the scheme of compassionate appointment, w.e.f 15.3.2019, though it had been communicated that the scheme was approved by the Government of India on 7.8.2014 and has been made applicable w.e.f 5.8.2014.

6. With the above facts, it is vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that adoption of scheme of compassionate appointment by the Board of the Regional Rural Banks was only a ministerial exercise and it was not open for the Board to make any distinction in the matter of applicability of the scheme of compassionate appointment. The scheme was to be applied w.e.f 5.8.2014 as had been done for the employees of Public Sector Banks. There was no justification for discrimination between two sets of employees and the artificial classification made by the Board of the Bank is wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

7. In the alternative, it is contended that once the respondent Board had acknowledged that the scheme of compassionate appointment was adopted on 15.3.2019, the application moved by the petitioner's mother on 8.4.2019, i.e. after implementation of the scheme could not have been rejected on the ground that the said scheme was not available on the date of death of the petitioner's father. It is contended that the date of death of an employee can have no relation with the claim of compassionate appointment as the dependant of a deceased employee has no vested right to seek compassionate appointment. In fact no cause of action accrued to the petit