JUDGMENT :

1. This writ petition is directed against an order dated 20.01.2020, declining an application by the petitioner’s mother seeking compassionate appointment for him on ground of his father’s death in harness.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition are that the petitioner’s father was employed as an office assistant in Baroda U.P. Bank, earlier known as the Purvanchal Bank. The said bank shall hereinafter be called ‘the Bank’. The petitioner’s father was last posted at Branch Kadamtar, District Ballia. He died in harness on 8th of October, 2018. The petitioner’s mother moved an application seeking compassionate appointment for him, the petitioner being the eldest son of the deceased. The application was made to the General Manager of the Bank on 18.04.2019 accompanied by the deceased employee’s death certificate dated 02.11.2018. The Assistant General Manager of the Bank by the order impugned dated 20.01.2020 communicated the Bank’s decision declining to consider the petitioner’s case on ground that the dying in harness scheme became effective in the Bank w.e.f. 15th March, 2019, whereas the petitioner’s father had expired prior to 15th March, 2019.

3. The petitioner has also challenged a circular dated 28.03.2019 issued by the Head Office of the Bank, explaining the operation of the scheme for compassionate appointment in terms that the provision in the scheme that claims, ‘in case of death occurring five years earlier can be considered’, does not mean that the scheme would have retrospective operation. In other words, the circular issued by the Head Office impugned, clarifies that in cases of death of employees in harness that have happened before the scheme was enforced, the right to a consideration for compassionate appointment is not there.

4. Heard Mr. Seemant Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Gyan Prakash Srivastava, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.4 and 5 and Mr. Salilendu Kumar Upadhyay, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.1 and 2.

5. Mr. Seemant Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the circular dated 28.03.2019 issued by the Head Office of the Bank interpreting the dying in harness scheme to be prospective in operation is flawed and defeats the mandate of the scheme for compassionate appointment originally framed and adopted by the Bank. The scheme for compassionate appointment in Public Sector Banks, as it is called, was notified by the Ministry of Finance w.e.f. 05.08.2014. Clause 8 of the Scheme reads:

“8.1. Application for employment under the Scheme from eligible dependent should normally be considered upto five years from the date of death or retirement on medical grounds and decision to be taken on merit in each case.

8.2. However, Bank can consider request for compassionate appointment even when the death or retirement on medical grounds of the employee took place long back, even five years ago. While considering such belated requests, it should, however, be kept in view that the concept of compassionate appointment is largely related to the need for immediate assistance to the family of the employee in order to relieve it from economic distress. The very fact that the family has been able to manage somehow all these years should normally be taken as adequate proof that the family had some dependable means of subsistence. Therefore, examination of such cases would call for a great deal of circumspection. The decision to make appointment on compassionate grounds in such cases may, therefore, be taken only at the Board level.”

6. Mr. Seemant Singh, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that Clause 8.1 of the Scheme clearly lays down that the claim to compassionate appointment by a dependent of a deceased employee can normally be considered upto five years from the date of death. According to him, the scheme is beneficial in nature and must be construed to apply retrospectiv