The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the applicability of the schemes and rules in force regarding compassionate appointment on the date of the employee's death and the date of consideration of the dependent's application.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Yashwant Singh, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-Bank.

2. The petitioner, Vijay Kumar, is the son of a deceased employee of the Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank. His father died in harness. The petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondent-Bank by the orders impugned dated 30.06.2018 and 29.12.2022. He has, therefore, moved this Court, praying that the orders aforesaid be quashed and a mandamus issued to the respondent-Bank to consider his case for grant of compassionate appointment.

3. The facts giving rise to this petition are these:

The Regional Rural Banks Act, 1976 (for short, ‘the Act of 1976’) was enacted to incorporate and regulate Regional Rural Banks in the country. This was done for the purpose of developing the rural economy, particularly, that relating to agriculture, trade etc. One of these Banks was the U.P. Gramin Bank established under the Act of 1976. The U.P. Gramin Bank was a Regional Rural Bank, and, subsequently, incorporated as the Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank, Meerut. Still later, the Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank came into existence by amalgamation of the existing Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank and the Prathama Bank. The Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank is a Rural Bank, which is an undertaking of the Government of India and sponsored by the Punjab National Bank. It is the petitioner’s case that all rules and regulations made by the Government of India for Public Sector Banks are applicable to the Prathama U.P. Gramin Bank (for short ‘the Bank’).

4. The Ministry of Finance, Government of India by an order dated 07.08.2014, bearing DOF No. 18/2/2013-IR made a scheme for compassionate appointment in Public Sector Banks and this scheme is applicable to all Public Sector Banks, including the Bank. The petitioner’s father, the late Om Prakash was a permanent employee of the Bank. He was a Clerk-cum-Cashier in the erstwhile Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank. He died in harness on 25.08.2018. At the time of his demise, the petitioner’s father was posted at the Gangdhari Branch of the erstwhile Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank, Meerut, which, as already said, later on amalgamated with the Prathama Bank, giving rise to its successor, the Bank. The petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment to the Bank on 29.10.2018 and followed up the matter with a reminder dated 22.11.2018.

5. The petitioner’s claim, however, for compassionate appointment was not considered by the Bank and no result whatsoever of the decision taken, if any, was communicated. The petitioner, therefore, moved this Court by instituting Writ-A No. 19314 of 2022, seeking a direction to the Bank to take a decision on the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment. This Court by an order dated 24.11.2022 disposed of the aforesaid writ petition with a direction to the petitioner to make an appropriate application to some functionary of the Bank, described in this Court’s order as respondent No. 3. The specified functionary of the Bank was directed to consider the petitioner’s application sympathetically and pass appropriate and reasoned orders thereon within a period of four months of the receipt of the petitioner’s application.

6. In compliance with this Court’s order dated 24.11.2022, the petitioner made an application along with a certified copy of the order. The date of this application is not mentioned by the petitioner; nor is it shown on the face of the document, annexed as Annexure No. 7 to the writ petition. In compliance, on their part, the Chief Manager of the Bank passed the order impugned dated 29.12.2022, whereby the petitioner was informed that his claim already stands rejected by his predecessor (the then General Manager, Sarva U.P. Gramin Bank) by the impugned order dated 30.10.2018. Thus, the petitioner’s application was rejected.

7. A perusal of the impugned order dated 30.10.2018 shows that the General Manager