The main legal point established is that the revised scheme for compassionate appointment applies retrospectively to cases of death occurring within five years from the date of implementation, as it is intended to encompass such cases.

JUDGMENT :

(1) Heard Shri Prashant Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel representing the appellants/Bank, Shri Om Prakash Pandey, learned Counsel representing the respondent no.1/writ petitioner, Shri Krishna Lal Yadav, learned Counsel representing the respondent no.2/Union of India and Shri Neerav Chitravanshi, learned Counsel representing the respondent no.3-NABARD.

(2) The present appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of the Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, has been filed by the appellants/Bank, wherein they have questioned the judgment and order dated 24.04.2023 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ-A No. 24908 of 2019 filed by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner. It is the contention of the appellants/bank that the aforesaid writ petition has been allowed and the impugned order dated 08.04.2019, by which application of the writ petitioner/respondent no.1 for compassionate appointment was rejected, has been set-aside by the learned Single Judge and appellants herein have been directed to decide the claim of the respondent no.1/writ petitioner in the light of the directions given in Writ-A No. 2615 of 2023 : Smt. Manjeet Kaur Vs. State of U.P. and another vide order dated 05.04.2023.

(3) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the father of respondent no.1/writ petitioner, who was working in the appellants-Bank on the post of Messenger [Office Attendant (Multipurpose)], died in harness on 23.05.2016. As on that date, the scheme, namely, ‘Scheme for payment of ex gratia amount in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds or appointment of dependents of deceased employees on compassionate grounds in exceptional cases’ was existant in the appellants/Bank. However, pursuant to letter dated 09.01.2019 of the National Bank for Agricultural and Development (NABARD), the Board of Directors of Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank (appellants herein) adopted the Scheme for Compassionate appointment w.e.f. the date of its adoption in Bank i.e. from 15.03.2019. According to the writ petitioner/respondent No.1, Clause 8 (2) of the aforesaid Scheme, which has been implemented w.e.f. 15.03.2019, clearly stipulates that the bank could consider the request of compassionate employment in case of death or retirement on medical grounds even in cases wherein the employees would had died ‘five years ago’. In this backdrops, it had been the case of the writ petitioner/respondent No.1 that since his father died on 23.05.2016 i.e. within five years from the date of implementation of the revised scheme for compassionate appointment and aid for ex-gratia has not been taken by the respondent no.1/writ petitioner, he preferred an application for his appointment in the bank under the ‘Dying-in-Harness Scheme’, which unfortunately was rejected by means of the order dated 08.04.2019 on the ground that the Scheme for compassionate appointment came into force in the bank w.e.f. 15.03.2019 and since his father had died on 23.05.2016, he is not entitled for the consideration of appointment on compassionate ground.

(4) Being aggrieved, the respondent no.1/writ petitioner filed Writ-A No. 20908 of 2019 before this Court. The learned Single Judge, vide judgment and order dated 24.04.2023, appreciated the earlier decision of the learned Single Judge rendered in Writ-A No. 2615 of 2013 decided on 05.04.2023 and allowed the writ petition on the similar ground and set-aside the order of the rejection of compassionate employment dated 08.04.2019 and further directed the appellants herein to decide the claim of the writ petitioner in the light of the directions given in Writ-A No. 2615 of 2013 decided on 05.04.2023. It is this order dated 24.04.2023, which has been questioned in the instant intra Court appeal.

(5) Assailing the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge, learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Single Judge erred in giving parity of the judgment and order dated 05.04.2023 (supra) to the respondent no.1/writ petitioner as t