ORDER

Aggrieved against the order of the 3rd respondent dated 28.11.2014 in

Co:HRM:Comp.App:2014-15, the petitioner has filed the present Writ Petition, whereby the petitioner's claim to consider him under the

Compassionate appointment got rejected.

2.It is the case of the petitioner that his father – Late N.Murugan worked as Senior Manager in the Manali Branch and due to harness died on 02.01.1997. Immediately, petitioner's mother submitted her representation on 12.03.1997, seeking to appoint the petitioner herein, under Compassionate Appointment. At the time of death of the said Murugan, petitioner was a minor and after attaining majority, petitioner's mother again submitted her representation on 21.07.2001, requesting the respondent Bank to give appointment, to the petitioner under Compassionate Appointment. In response to the same, the respondent Bank has sent a communication on 09.07.2004, directing the petitioner to apply afresh, on the basis of the scheme introduced vide Bank's circular dated 27.04.2004 and in the Circular, it is made clear that if in case, an employee dies on account of injury sustained while performing official duty, including death caused while on duty due to decoity / robbery / terrorist attack, the family of the deceased employee will be given an option to choose either compassionate employement to eligible dependent family member or to receive a cash compensation.

3.In all the cases, an employee dying in harness, then the deceased employee's dependants are eligible, either for compassionate appointment or to receive a cash compensation. Accordingly, the respondent Bank has sent a letter dated 09.07.2004 directing the petitioner's mother to submit an application either choosing for compassionate appointment or for a cash compensation.

4.In response, petitioner's mother vide letter dated 05.08.2004 requested the respondent Bank, to consider the claim of Compassionate Appointment instead of Cash Compensation. However, the respondent sent another letter dated 16.11.2004 directing the petitioner's mother to apply for the benefit of cash compensation in the prescribed format, in lieu of appointment on or before 30.11.2004, and further directed that if no response before the said date, the petitioner will not be eligible for any benefit under the scheme. Though the petitioner's mother repeatedly requested for consideration under Compassionate appointment, due to the respondent Bank's letter dated 16.11.2004 stating that they will not be eligible for any benefit under the scheme, except cash compensation, with no other option by letter dated 29.11.2004 submitted her willingness to receive cash compensation and she sent the required application along with the letter.

5.In the meantime, the respondent Bank had introduced a scheme for payment of Ex-gratia to the family of employees dying in harness/employees prematurely retired on medical grounds, in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds vide its letter dated 30.08.2005 and the time limit prescribed for the above mentioned scheme is that, six months from the date of death of the employee. Thereafter, the respondent Bank, in reply to the petitioner's mother's letter dated 29.11.2004, requesting for compassionate appointment as well as cash compensation, sent a letter dated 08.09.2005, informing about the implementation of new scheme for Ex-gratia payment, in lieu of appointment on compassionate grounds and also directed to apply for the above said scheme afresh in the prescribed format.

6.Again, the petitioner along with his mother sent a representation dated

23.09.2013 to the respondent Bank, for consideration of the petitioner under Compassionate Appointment, for which, the respondent Bank, vide letter dated 23.10.2013 informed that there is no scope for compassionate appointment and further, the petitioner and his mother not chosen to apply for the Ex-gratia, before the stipulated time, the respondent Bank is not in a position to consider their requests.

7