The main legal point established in the judgment is that the policy prevailing at the time of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment would be applicable, and compassionate appointment is a concession, not a right.

JUDGMENT SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J. : – Heard.

2. This writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant Bank of India under section 2(1) of Madhya Pradesh Uchha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005, and the rules made thereunder assailing the order dated 26-7-2021, passed in Writ Petition No. 7249 of 2012 by the Single Judge of the writ Court, whereby the writ petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as ‘the petitioner’) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for her compassionate appointment has been allowed with a cost of Rs. 2 lakhs to be paid by the appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent Bank’) to the writ petitioner.

3. In brief, the facts of the case are that the petitioner’s husband Ashok Dhaigude, who was an employee of the erstwhile State Bank of Indore went missing on 20-10-1998, and as his absence was for more than 90 days, in terms of para 17(a) of Bipartite Settlement dated 10-4-1989 read with para 522(3) of Sastry Award, he was served with 30 days notice on 21-1-1999, calling upon him to resume duties within 30 days from the date of notice, failing which he would be treated to have voluntarily retired. The aforesaid notice was replied to by the wife of Ashok Dhaigude, vide her letter dated 8-2-1999, informing the bank that her husband has been missing since 20-10-1998 and she has also lodged a police report in this regard. As it turned out, Ashok Dhaigude did not report on duty till 10-6-1999 i.e., much after the expiry of the said notice dated 21-1-1999, the Controller of the Branch treated him as voluntarily retired with effect from 20-10-1998 i.e., the date on which he went missing.

4. The case of the petitioner is that in the meantime, on 17-5-1999, she also applied for employment in the bank in place of her husband (although this fact is disputed by the appellants). Subsequently, as per the letter dated 11-11-2005, the Superintendent of Police, after thoroughly searching for the petitioner’s husband also informed the petitioner that police have already tried its level best to locate her husband even by telecasting the information through Doordarshan and through Gazette notification, but his whereabouts are still unknown. On 3-9-2007, a legal notice was also sent by the petitioner to the respondent Bank that as it has already been more than 7 years since the husband of the petitioner got missing, and earlier when the petitioner approached the Bank with a request of her compassionate appointment, she was informed by the Bank that her request can only be considered after lapse of 7 years, thus it was demanded that the petitioner be given employment in the bank in place of her husband. According to the petitioner, her husband shall be presumed dead with effect from 20-10-2005 under section 108 of the Evidence Act, 1872 as he went missing on 20-10-1998.

5. On 5-5-2008, the petitioner was informed by the erstwhile bank that the scheme of granting compassionate appointment has come to an end with effect from 10-1-2006, hence, her application for compassionate appointment cannot be accepted, however, she would be entitled to receive the other emoluments including Provident Fund, Gratuity etc. In response to the aforesaid letter, vide her letter dated 6-6-2008, the petitioner also wrote to the respondent Bank again seeking compassionate appointment contending that her husband was presumed dead on 20-10-2005, on which date the scheme of grant of compassionate appointment was in force and had the bank acted promptly, they could have appointed her under the scheme prior to 10-1-2006. A reply to the aforesaid representation was also sent by the bank on 14-1-2009, again reiterating that as the scheme of compassionate appointment has already come to an end on 10-1-2006 her application cannot be considered, which led the respondent/writ petitioner to file W. P. No. 7249 of 2012, which came to be allowed with costs by the learned Judge of the writ Court vide i