ORDER

1. In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed that respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and provide him the appointment on suitable post.

2. Shri L.N. Sakle, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have committed an error in issuing the rejection order dated 4th December, 2001. Criticizing this order, it is urged that in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, the petitioner's claim for compassionate appointment could not have been rejected on the basis of terminal dues received by the family of the deceased father of petitioner namely Shri Ramchandra Madankar.

3. This is not in dispute that father of petitioner died in harness on 16.2.2000 and petitioner’s application for grant of compassionate appointment is turned down by order dated 4th December, 2001. Shri Sakle by placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) submits that dependents of Class-III / ClassIV employees are entitled for compassionate appointment and respondents have certainly erred in rejecting the application.

4. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned Sr. counsel supported the impugned order on the basis of same judgment i.e. Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) and placed reliance on clause (i) of policy/scheme of compassionate appointment. It is submitted that amount received in various heads of terminal dues are relevant factors as per the policy for deciding the financial health of the family. The petitioner’s family has received Rs.4,17,435/-. The total monthly income of the family comes to Rs.3407.00 (Pension + D.A.per month). By adding notional interest on the net terminal benefits, the amount per month comes to Rs.6364/-. The deceased employee’s gross last drawn salary was Rs.6195/-. Thus, petitioner’s family is getting more than the last drawn salary of deceased employee. The petitioner has not filed any rejoinder and therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the factual averments relating to payment to the family members after the death of the employee.

5. No other point is pressed by the parties.

6. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record.

7. The respondents have rejected the claim of the petitioner by order dated 4th December, 2001 (Annexure P-4). This order is not called in question in the relief clause of Writ Petition. However, on merits also the petitioner’s claim was decided on the basis of relevant portion of the policy. The said portion as reproduced in the return reads as under:

“Clause (i) : Financial condition of the family : Appointments in the public services are made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. However, exceptions are made in favour of dependents of employees dying in harness and leaving their family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Determining the financial condition of the family is therefore an important criterion for deciding the proposals for compassionate appointment. The following factors should be taken into account for determining the financial condition of the family:

(i) Family pension;

(ii) Gratuity amount received;

(iii) Employee’s / Employer’s contribution to Provident Fund.

(iv) The compensation paid by the Bank or its welfare fund;

(v) Proceeds of LIC policies or other investment of the deceased employee;

(vi) Income of family from other sources;

(vii) Income of other family members from employment or other sources.

(viii) Liability of the family to other outsiders which is verifiable.

(ix) Liability of the deceased employee to the Bank on account of borrowing or otherwise.

(x) Size of the family (Emphasis Supplied)

8. The respondents have considered the claim of the petitioner on the touchstone of the policy. In Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) the apex Court has opined as under :-

“2. …...The Government or the public authority concerned