The eligibility for compassionate appointment requires that the total family income must be less than 60% of the deceased’s last drawn salary, excluding independent family members' incomes.

JUDGMENT :

J.J. MUNIR, J.

1. The petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents, the officers of the Punjab National Bank,(‘Bank’ for short) and the petitioner thinks that they have done so arbitrarily, committing a manifest error of law. He assails the decision of the Bank to refuse his application for compassionate appointment on account of his father’s death in harness. The petitioner has challenged various orders and resolutions passed by the officers and Committees of the Bank, declining his claim, to which a moreful allusion would be made later in this judgment.

2. The petitioner’s father served the Indian Army, which he left upon his retirement from service. He availed the benefit of being an ex- serviceman and was appointed as an Armed Guard with the Bank on 16.12.2014. His date of birth was 20.07.1973. The petitioner’s father, the late Satyaveer Singh was a permanent employee of the Bank. He died in harness on 17.12.2016, suffering a cardiac arrest. The petitioner made an application for compassionate appointment under the dying-in-harness scheme applicable on 11.06.2020. He made another application on 19.02.2021. At the time of his demise, the petitioner’s father was survived by his mother Ramwati, aged about 72 years, his wife Sudesh Devi aged about 45 years, a son Monu Nagar, aged about 27 years, another son, Sonu Nagar (the petitioner), aged about 22 years, still another son, Praveen, aged about 18 years, and, Sonika, a married daughter aged 24 years. These facts about the deceased’s family profile are clearly set forth in the application that the petitioner made for compassionate appointment to the Bank. It was supported by a ‘No Objection’ from the other family members, saying that they would have no objection if the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment were considered by the Bank.

3. The petitioner, on the strength of the no objection certificate, which was on affidavit by the other survivors of the deceased, applied for compassionate appointment, as aforesaid. The Bank raised certain objections by their letter dated 23.02.2022, which the petitioner, through an affidavit, caused to be removed. These objections were with regard to dependency of the family members upon the deceased.

4. The petitioner says that he moved an application before the Branch Manager (Currency Chest), Ambedkar Marg, Ghaziabad, pressing his claim for compassionate appointment. The Branch Manager last mentioned visited the petitioner’s Village Atta, Post Office Gulaothi, District Bulandshahr and appraised the circumstances of the deceased’s family. He verified the particulars about the petitioner’s claim. The petitioner’s application was considered in all its details by a Committee comprising two officers - the Chief Manager and a Senior Manager, who, vide their memo dated 30.12.2022, found the petitioner not entitled to compassionate appointment in terms of the scheme for compassionate appointment dated 26.03.2020, as revised vide circular dated 09.02.2021 and 17.07.2021.

5. After consideration by the Committee as aforesaid, recommendations were placed for decision before another Committee of three officers, comprising an Assistant General Manager (HRDD), the Deputy General Manager (HRMD) and the General Manager (HRD). They tick-marked their approval to the recommendations of the two- member committee, declining the petitioner’s claim. The Committee of three Managers of the Bank, who held the petitioner ineligible, have not dated their orders, but the orders appear to be one passed in Decem