IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, AT INDORE BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR &

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH ON THE 09 ^th OF MAY, 2022 WRIT APPEAL No. 604 of 2020 Between:-

1. CANARA BANK, MANAGER MUKHYA KAYALAYA 112, J.C. ROAD BANGALORE, BANGALORE, KARNATAKA.

2. THE ADDL. MANAGER, CANARA BANK, HRM DEPARTMENT, PARYAWAS BHAWAN III BLOCK, 5^th FLOOR, JAIL ROAD, ARERA HILLS, BHOPAL,MADHYA PRADESH.

3. THE BRANCH MANAGER, CANARA BANK, SCHEME NO.54, VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE, MADHYA PRADESH.

....APPELLANT NOS.1 TO 3 (RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3)

(BY SHRI R.C. SINHAL, ADVOCATE )

AND

1. SMT.SUDHA SITAL, W/O LATE SHRI RAMESH SITAL, HOUSEWORK, 27/3, VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH) 2. ALOK SITAL, S/O LATE SHRI RAMESH SITAL, PRIVATE SECTOR, 27/3, VIJAY NAGAR,INDORE(MADHYA PRADESH)

3. SHWETA SITAL, D/O LATE SHRI RAMESH SITAL, 27/3, VIJAY NAGAR,INDORE(MADYA PRADESH)

….RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 (PETITIONER NOS.1 TO 3)

(BY SMT. JYOTI MAHESHWARI, ADVOCATE)

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This Writ Appeal coming on for orders this day, Hon'ble Shri Justice Subodh Abhyankar passed the following:

JUDGMENT

This Writ Appeal has been filed by the appellants/Canara Bank against the order dated 16.3.2020 passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.1276/2017.

02. Brief facts of the case are that, the respondents filed the aforesaid writ petition assailing the order dated 1.6.2009, passed by the appellant No.1/Bank denying the benefit of compassionate appointment to the son of respondent No.1/petitioner No.1. The petition was also filed against the order dated 1.8.2012 whereby the payment of lump-sum ex-gratia amount in lieu of compassionate appointment has also been declined by the appellant-Bank. The employee of the Bank in the present case died on 14.12.2007 after a brief illness.

03. Shri R.C. Singal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/Bank has submitted that the learned Judge of the writ court has erred in not properly appreciating the new policy for the compassionate appointment and has erred in not considering the financial condition of the petitiners. Counsel has further submitted that vide Circular No.143/2015 dated 20.3.2015 the petitioner/ Bank introduced a new scheme for compassionate appointment which came into force w.e.f. 05.8.2014 and regarding ex-gratia payment, it was provided that the Bank shall have option to give compassionate appointment or ex-gratia lump-sum payment, but in both the cases, the conditions stipulated for compassionate appointment will be applicable.

04. Counsel for the petitioner/Bank has also drawn attention of this Court to Clause 9.2 of the aforesaid circular and has also referred to the new scheme for compassionate appointment introduced vide Annexure A/6, which covers :-

(a) only to wholly dependent member of the family, (b) also to the cases where death of employee has occurred prior to 05.08.2014 but subject to explanation that, at the time of employee's death there was emergent need for compassionate appointment so as to relieve the family from financial distress, (c) the scheme disqualifies those cases where family of deceased employee could manage somehow in all these years and, (d) formal of application has also been prescribed for use of the applicants.

05. Counsel has further submitted that admittedly, the respondent No.2 was an earning member and not wholly dependent upon the the respondent's family and the family itself had been receiving a monthly income of Rs.12,982/- including monthly family pension of Rs.8,267/- and thus, it does not qualify to be considered in this new scheme as the family is not in penury.

06. In support of his submissions, Counsel has relied upon the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 and General Manager Vs. Kunti Tiwari reported in (2004) 7 SCC 271 in para 9 .

07. Thus, it is submitted that the findings given by the l