Allahabad High Court
Swami Sharan Tripathi [Hearing ... vs Central Bank Of India Thru G.M. And ... on 10 October, 2013
Bench: Vishnu Chandra Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
Court No. - 17 AFR
Case :- SERVICE SINGLE No. - 3128 of 2005
Petitioner :- Swami Sharan Tripathi
Respondent :- Central Bank Of India Thru G.M. And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhumita Bose,Ran Vijay Singh
Counsel for Respondent :- N.K.Seth,Nirmal Kumar Seth,Vijay Kumar Srivastaba
Hon'ble Vishnu Chandra Gupta,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Bank.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 05.02.2003 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition) by which the request made for compassionate appointment being the son of the deceased employee late Bhawani Nandan Tripathi was declined by the Bank and further seeks a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to give suitable appointment to the petitioner on compassionate ground.
The brief facts for deciding the present writ petition are that Bhawani Nandan Tripathi, who was working as Clerk in Central Bank of India at Hajratganj Branch, Lucknow died on 02.02.2001 during his service period leaving behind his wife Smt.Lalita Tripathi and one son, namely, Swami Sharan Tripathi, the petitioner. The petitioner being the son of late Bhawani Nandan Tripathi moved an application for compassionate appointment but by the impugned order, the Bank expressed inability to grant compassionate appointment without assigning any reason.
In the counter affidavit filed by the Bank, it has been contended in paragraph 12 that it cannot be said that the family of the deceased employee has no means for their livelihood and are living in penury because the family pension along with dearness allowance of Rs.5179/-p.m. and of Rs.1,54,494.84 and Rs.1,76,256.00 towards provident fund and gratuity respectively has been paid by the Bank. As such compassionate appointment was rightly denied.
This Court vide its order dated 04.10.2013 asked the Bank to disclose the liability of the deceased employee which has been adjusted against the terminal benefit which is stated to have been provided to the deceased employee. Today, learned counsel for the Bank placed certain papers showing details in respect of liabilities of the deceased employee. In Data sheet of dated 17.01.2002, it has been shown that at the time of death of the deceased employee, his liabilities were as follows:
(i) Personal Loan of Rs.48,903/-
(ii) PF loan of Rs.12,027/-
(iii) PF loan of Rs.24,748/-
(iv) NSC loan of Rs.25,080/-
(v) Vehicle loan of Rs.4,613/-
Aforesaid loans have been adjusted from the terminal benefit provided to the legal heirs of the deceased employee. Apart from it, a house loan of Rs.1,35,834/- and Society loan of Rs.66,551/- was also shown against the deceased employee. The Bank has not disclosed either in the counter affidavit or till date by means of any document that what was the net amount paid to the legal heirs of the deceased after making adjustment of all the liabilities of deceased employee.
In paragraph 6 of the rejoinder affidavit, it has been stated that an amount of Rs.7000/- towards terminal benefit of the petitioner's father has been paid after making the adjustment of the liabilities. This part of the statement made in the rejoinder affidavit has not been denied by the opposite parties.
From the perusal of paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit, it reveals that after the death of deceased employee certain terminal benefits, namely, Provident Fund of Rs.1,54,494.84 and Gratuity of Rs.1,76,256.00 have been paid. It is also mentioned therein that besides the terminal benefit paid to the family of the deceased employee, the family pension of Rs.5,179/- per month including Dearness Allowance has also been provided and as such, it cannot be said that the family of the deceased employee has no sufficient means for their livelihood.
In paragraph 6 of the rejoinder affidavit, it has been pleaded that the father of the petitioner was suffering from blood cancer for two years before his death and had taken loans which has been adjusted in the terminal benefits. It is also contended in the writ petition that the Bank offered the employment to the wife of the deceased employee but the wife offered her son for employment as her health was not good to carry out the responsibilities of the employment but the Bank instead of considering the employment of the son of the deceased employee declined to give compassionate appointment without any reason. However later on, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that on the basis of good financial status of the family, the appointment of compassionate ground could not be provided.
It will be important to mention here that the employment was offered to the wife of the deceased by the Bank but she was declined on account of her illness and offered the services of her son. These facts are not denied rather submitted by the Bank in its counter affidavit. If it is so, it is crystal clear that the Bank was fully satisfied while offering the compassionate appointment to the wife as admitted by Bank in paragraph 14 of counter affidavit that the financial condition of the deceased employee was not good. In data sheet, it has been admitted by the Bank that family of deceased has no other source of income and family consists wife, five married daughters and one married son, the petitioner at the time of death of deceased employee. In data sheet, the basic salary of deceased employee was shown of Rs.8980 + FPA of Rs.380/- p.m. excluding Dearness Allowance. The family pension payable to the wife including Dearness Allowance is only Rs.5179/-p.m. As only Rs.7000/- has been paid as terminal benefit so question of interest income does not arise. The learned counsel for Bank did not denied that deceased employee was not suffering from Blood Cancer but stated that medical reimbursement of big amount has been made to deceased employee.
Having considered all these facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order cannot be allowed to sustain and the same is liable to be set aside.
Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 05.02.2003 is set aside.
The opposite parties are directed to provide suitable employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. There shall be no order as to costs.
Order Date :- 10.10.2013
akverma
