Judgment on Board Per

Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

03.04.2025

1. Heard Mr. B.P.Rao, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr.Sharad Mishra, learned counsel, appearing for the respondents on I.A. No.01/2025, which is an application for condonation of delay of 335 days in filing the instant appeal.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the application i.e. I.A. No.01/2025, the same is allowed and delay is condoned.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

4. This writ appeal is presented against an order dated 6.3.2024 passed by learned Single Judge in WPS No. 5333 of 2017, whereby the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners / appellants was dismissed.

5. Brief facts of the case are that husband of appellant No.1 namely Deendayal Markam died in harness on 14.11.2014 while he was posted as Daftari under the employment of respondent No.1 at Branch Office, Bhandarpur, District-Rajnandgaon(C.G.). After the death of husband, appellant No.1 moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment before the concerned authority and after scrutiny, the said application was rejected on the ground that the condition of the family is well and they are not indigent. Being aggrieved by the rejection of application of the appellants for compassionate appointment, the appellants herein preferred writ petition before this Court, which was dismissed by learned Single Judge by the impugned order. Hence, this writ appeal.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that although the younger son of the deceased is in Government Employment, but he is drawing just Rs.10,270/- per month and lives alone in rented house in another place where he is posted i.e, away from the appellants and therefore, from this small amount of salary, he is unable to extend his financial help to the appellants, therefore the only regular source of income for the appellants is monthly Family Pension of Rs. 11073/- and Income from Agricultural i.e. Rs. 2000/- pm, Bank Interest on Terminal Dues comes to Rs. 30000/- PA i.e, 2500/- PM thus the total Rs. 15,573/- is the regular income of the appellants herein, therefore, in these hard days of life conclusion of the Respondent Bank as well as learned Single Bench that the appellants are not facing with financial crises seems to be incorrect. He further submits that there is a scheme for compassionate appointment to a dependent family members of a deceased employee dated 25.9.2014 wherein there is no bar for considering compassionate appointment to dependent if there is already an earning member. He also submits that the deceased was working as Daftary in the Respondent's Bank, which is sub- ordinate category post and lowest post in Bank among other posts, therefore, during his life, he may not save any big amount for future, but this aspect has not been considered by the Respondent's Bank while rejecting the application for compassionate appointment to Appellant No. 2, as well as learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition. He contended that in every Bank employee after their retirement or on demise during service tenure the dependent wife entitled and received some sort of Family Pension and Applicable Terminal Benefits that by itself can never be made a ground to determine indigent condition of the dependent and to refuse appointment to the son of the deceased employee on compassionate grounds. He relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Govind Prasad Verma v. L.I.C. of India & others reported in 2005 (10) SCC 289 wherein, it has been held that Compassionate ground appointment can not be refused on the ground that any member of the family has received such benefits. Receipt of Family Pension and Terminal Benefits can not be the sole ground for denying Compassionate Appointment, because if such principles is accepted then no dependent of Central Government Employees would get it, therefore, the purpose of introduction of Compassionate Appointment