IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that financial benefits received by a deceased employee's family must be assessed against their liabilities to determine eligibility for compassionate appointment.

JUDGMENT :

(Neeraj Tiwari, J.) :

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.V. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed with the following prayers :

''(i) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.11.2017, which was communicated on 24.11.2017, rejecting the application of petitioner on compassionate appointment.

(ii) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Bank to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground as per his qualification.''

3. Brief facts of the case are that father of petitioner was working as Branch Manager at Mahoba Branch. During the course of service, he died on 19.1.2017. After his death, mother of petitioner has received Rs. 10,000,00/- as Gratuity Fund, Rs. 15,160,00/- as Provident Fund, Rs. 6,24,178/- as leave encashment, Rs. 17,000,00/- against TDR and Rs. 2,000,00/- from LIC insurance amounting to a sum of Rs. 50,40,178/-. Father of petitioner had liabilities to pay Rs. 5,97,000/- towards bank. After deduction of the same, total amount paid is Rs. 44,43,178/-. Mother of petitioner is also getting family pension of Rs. 24,718/- per month.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in light of Para 17 of Sub Para (iii) of the Bank of India Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, application for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be rejected on the ground that family of employee has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes, therefore, order is bad and liable to be set aside.

5. Per Contra, Sri R.V. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that Para 17 of Sub Para (iii) of the Bank of India Scheme for Compassionate Appointment clearly says that while deciding the application liability has to be taken into consideration. In the present case, undisputedly, total liability upon the father of petitioner was of Rs. 5,97,000/- towards bank, therefore, after deduction of the same, apart from monthly family pension of Rs. 24,718/-, mother of petitioner has received Rs. 44,43,178/-, therefore, there is no illegality in denial of compassionate appointment to petitioner.

6. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of Apex Court as well as this Court in the cases of General Manager (D & PB) and others v. Kunti Tiwary and another, (2004) 7 SCC 271, Punjab National Bank and others v. Ashwani Kumar Taneja, 2004 (7) SCC 265, State Bank of India v. Jaspal Kaur, (2007) 9 SCC 571, State Bank of India v. Ajay Kumar (Special Appeal No. 14 of 2007), Punjan National Bank v. Deepak Pandey (Special Appeal No. 867 of 2006) and Smt. Nanda Tambe v. Union of India and others passed in Writ-A No. 54592 of 2004.

7. In rejoinder argument, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the factual as well as legal submissions so made by the learned counsel for the respondents.

8. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments as well as record. The main issue is before this Court that about the interpretation of Para 17 of Sub Para (iii) of the Bank of India Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, which is being quoted hereinbelow :

''iii An application for compassionate appointment should, however, not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the employee has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family etc.''

9. From perusal of the same, it is apparently clear that while c