ORDER

1. This petition under Article 226 of Constitution of India has been filed against order dated 29.1.2018 passed by respondent No.2 in Reference No.KZO/HR/2274 by which application filed by petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father on 8.12.2002 has been rejected only on the ground that petitioner should have moved an application within a period of one year of the death of his father for keeping his claim alive and since same was not done, therefore, he is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground.

2. Facts of the case are that father of petitioner died in harness on 8.12.2002. The sister of petitioner, who was also minor moved an application for appointment on compassionate ground. However, fate of the said application is not on record.

3. Be that whatever it may be.

4. It is the case of petitioner that on 21.6.2015 he filed an application for appointment on compassionate ground for the first time. Ultimately by order dated 29.1.2018, his application has been rejected on the ground that as per policy which was in force on the date of death of his father, if claimant was minor or was not having minimum qualification, then his claim could have been considered by Bank within a period of 4 years from the date of death of employee, provided minor should have requested the Bank within a period of one year from the date of death of employee alongwith the original document of date of birth and other relevant documents.

5. Petitioner has filed a rejoinder and in the said rejoinder, he has disclosed the date of birth of his sisters as well as of himself. Undisputedly, date of birth of petitioner is 20.6.1997. Since he lost his father on 8.12.2002, therefore, it is clear that at the time of death of his father, he was only 5 years and 6 months old. It is also an admitted position that petitioner had already lost his mother prior to death of his father.

6. Supreme Court in the cases of Indian Bank v. Promila, reported in (2020) 2 SCC 729 and State of Madhya Pradesh v. Ashish Awasthy by judgment dated 18.11.2021 passed in C.A. No.6903/2021 has held that policy for appointment on compassionate ground which was in force on the date of death of employee would apply. Neither petitioner nor respondents have placed copy of policy which was in force on the date of death of his father, therefore, this petition is being decided purely on the basis of reasons assigned by respondents in order dated 29.1.2018.

7. Letter dated 29.1.2018 reads as under :

cSad vkWQ bafM;k

Bank of India

Ref. No. KZO/HR/2274 Date: 29th January, 2018

Jh xaxk jke jSnkl]

H.No. 316,

eqMokjk] lkojdj okMZ

rglhy& dVuh ftyk tcyiqj ¼e-iz-½

Re: vkidk vuqdaik fu;qfDr ds fy, vkosnu

vkids i= fnukad 28-5-2017 ds lanHkZ esa] vkids vuqdaik fu;qfDr gsrq vkosnu l{ke izkf/kdkjh }kjk xfBr lfefr ds le{k mfpr dkjZokbZ gsrq izLrqr fd;k x;k FkkA

2- mDr fo"k; esa e`rd Jh jSnkl x.ks'kizlkn yYyh jke ds e`R;q fnukad 8-12-2002 dks iz/kku dk;kZy; ifji= la[;k 92@164 fnukad 17-3-1999 }kjk ifjpkfyr vuqdaik ;kstuk ds izR;sd izklafxd 'kk[kk iSjk ds varxZr fuEufyf[kr rF; izdk'k esa vk, gSaA

(i) mDr ;kstuk ds varxZr vuqdaik fu;qfDr gsrq vuqjks/k izR;sd ekeys esa deZpkjh dh e`R;q frfFk i'pkr 'kh?kzre ijarq ,d o"kZ ds vanj cSad dks izsf"kr djuk pkfg,A

(ii) ;fn vkfJr ukckfyx gS ;k mlds ikl mfpr U;wure vgZrk ugha gSa] rks ml ekeys es deZpkjh dh e`R;q ds pkj lky ds Hkhrj cSad }kjk foosdkuqlkj fopkj fd;k tk ldrk gS ftlls ukckfyx vkfJr dks fu;ekuqlkj r; vk;q ,oa 'kS{kf.kd vgZrk izkIr djuk laHko gks lds ijarq mDr izko/kku dks ykxw djus gsrq ukckfyx vkfJr dks deZpkjh dh e`R;q ds ,d o"kZ ds Hkhrj cSad dks vuqjks/k iznku djuk ,oa ukckfyx ds tUe frfFk dh ewy izfr ,oa vU; lacaf/kr nLrkostksa dks cSad es lk{k; gsrq tek djuk vko';d gSA

3- mDr izdj.k ,oa rF;ksa dks izkf/kd`r lfefr ds le{k izLrqr fd;k x;k ftldh fVIi.kh;ksa ,oa vuq'kalk ds vk/kkj ij egkizca/kd }kjk Jh xaxk jke jSnkl S/o jkbZnkl x.ks'k izlkn yYyh jke dh vuqdaik fu;qfDr gsrq izkIr vkosnu fnukad 28-5-2017 fujLr dj fn;k x;k