Compassionate appointment, while not a right, must be processed fairly. If an initial application is filed within the prescribed timeframe, a subsequent rejection based on 'inordinate delay' is unsustainable if the delay resulted from the public authority's own omission in discharging its duties.

Order

1. Instant writ petition is filed with following prayer:-

I. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus, quashing and setting aside the rejection letter dated 27.07.2020 in the application of the petitioner for the appointment on compassionate grounds and consider the petitioner's application afresh in consonance with Scheme for Compassionate Appointment as applicable in e-Allahabad Bank (HOIC No. 13846/PA/2015-16/26 dated 03.08.2015).

II. Issue an appropriate writ, order or directing the Respondent Bank to consider the Executive Committee's proposal and recommendation dated 23.03.2020 which recommended for the appointment for the Petitioner in terms of the provisions of the scheme in the post of SWO-A under Clerical Cadre on Compassionate grounds.

Ⅲ. Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction the Respondent Bank may be directed to comply with its scheme and give due benefits to the Petitioner's family either in terms of Compassionate Appointment or one time lump sum Ex-Gratia amount in lieu of Compassionate Appointment.

IV. The Respondent Bank may be directed to incur heavy cost due to its misconduct and unreasonable attitude towards the family of the Petitioner who faced acute financial crunches after the death of the sole bread winner of the family.

2. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that the father of petitioner was employed in Allahabad Bank and on date of death, he was working as Manager at Jaipur in Tonk Road Branch. He further submits that as per policy of the bank, the mother of the petitioner along with petitioner has filed an application for compassionate appointment and the petitioner was called for personal interaction, but during interaction, it was suggested to the petitioner that if petitioner completes the graduation then his appointment may be considered on clerical post else he will be given sub-staff post. He further submitted that after obtaining degree of graduation, the petitioner has applied for the appointment on clerical post, but the application was rejected by the respondent-Bank, despite the recommendation in favour of the petitioner by a Committee constituted by the respondent-Bank itself. He also submitted that not a single document is filed on record to show that the petitioner was ever offered any post in accordance with his qualification and further if the petitioner has not joined, then the application was rejected for not accepting offer.

3. Aforesaid contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents-Bank and submitted that the petitioner has filed an application when he was not graduate and was offered the post of sub-staff, but petitioner has not accepted the offer made by the respondent-Bank. He also submitted that after some years, when mother of the petitioner, who is widow of deceased, was also expired, the petitioner has filed a fresh application for appointment on post of Clerk on the basis of degree of graduation, but same was not in accordance with policy of the bank and the bank has rejected the proposal. He further submitted that the bank has considered the case of the petitioner, but petitioner has not accepted the offer as made to him soon after the death of his father.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record.

5. The facts of the case are almost admitted but the issue is that when the application was made for the first time soon after the death of father of petitioner and, the petitioner was called for personal interactio