2026:CGHC:16061 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 6685 of 2021  Pradeep Kumar Netam S/o Late Shri Manrakhan Lal Netam Aged About 50 Years R/o Village And Post- Mohala, Tahsil- Mohala, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s)

versus

1. Bank Of Baroda Through The Regional Head Bank Of Baroda, Durg Regional Office Sector 10, Bhilai, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh

2. The Branch Manager Bank Of Baroda, Mohala Branch, Post Office And Tahsil- Mohala, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s)

For Petitioner : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Judgment On Board

8.4.2026

1) By way of this petition, petitioner has sought following reliefs:-

10.1That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by quashing the impugned order dated 25.6.2020 (Annexure P/1) passed by the respondent No.

1.

10.2That this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner claim for compassionate appointment as per policy and law laid down by this court.

10.3That any other relief order that may be deemed fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case including awarding of the cost of the petition may kindly be passed.

2) Facts of present case are that petitioner’s father namely Manrakhan Lal Netam, who was working on the post of Clerk in respondent-bank died in harness on 22.6.2018. He left behind a widow and three children. Petitioner moved an application for grant of compassionate appointment and same was rejected by Dy. General Manager, Bank of Baroda vide order dated25.6.2020 on the ground that financial condition of the family is not indigent.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the elder sons of deceased bank employee are employed and one of them is a government servant but they are residing separately and no financial help is being extended by them to petitioner and his mother. He further submits that petitioner and his mother have no source of income, therefore respondent authorities ought to have considered the application moved by the petitioner. He prays to quash the order impugned dated 25.6.2020.

4) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-

bank would oppose. He has referred Clauses 6.1 and 13.1 of the Revised Scheme of Appointment on Compassionate Grounds

dated 24.3.2015 which were applicable on the date of demise. He submits that in the inquiry, it was found that family of the deceased bank employee is not indigent because it has multiple earning members and does not deserve relief from financial destitution. He contends that widow of deceased bank employee is receiving family pension and family has duly been paid the amounts of provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment and life insurance, thus the family is not facing any financial hardship. He further contends that respondent authority has rightly rejected the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment. He has placed reliance on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of General Manager (D&PB) and Others Versus Kunti Tiwary and Another, 1. 2004 SCC (L&S) 943, State Bank of India and Another Versus Somvir Singh, 2. (2007) 2 SCC (L&S) 92 and State of Gujarat and

Others Versus Arvindkumar T. Tiwari and Another³

5) I have heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and carefully perused the documents placed on record.

6) Admittedly, claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected on the ground that financial condition of the family is not indigent. Clause 6.1 of the policy dated 24.3.2015 deals with eligibility and states that claim of a dependent can be considered if family is indigent and deserves

3. (2012) 2 SCC (L&S) 795