Allahabad High Court
Rahul Kumar vs Chief Manger, Baroda Uttar ... on 23 March, 2021
Bench: Ashwani Kumar Mishra
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 33
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1494 of 2020
Petitioner :- Rahul Kumar
Respondent :- Chief Manger, Baroda Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank, Bareilly
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sanjay Kumar Pandey,Hausihla Prasad Mishra
Counsel for Respondent :- Pradeep Kumar Sinha
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
Petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected by the order impugned dated 29.5.2019, which is assailed in this petition. This order records that the subsequent policy for grant of compassionate appointment, which is relied upon by the petitioner, would not be applicable in the facts of the present case and the policy applicable on the date of accrual of cause did not contain any provision for grant of compassionate appointment and the petitioner has otherwise accepted ex-gratia amount payable under the then applicable policy.
Facts which have given rise to filing of the present petition lie in a narrow compass and are taking note of, at the outset.
Petitioner's father was employed in the respondent-bank and died in harness on 14.12.2017. A representation for grant of compassionate appointment was made by the petitioner on 15.5.2018. A subsequent representation was also made on 24.10.2018. This application/ representation apparently was rejected on 3.11.2018 by observing that the amount of Rs. 7 lakhs payable as ex-gratia amount has already been paid, therefore, the question of grant of compassionate appointment did not arise, in terms of relevant policy. It is thereafter that the petitioner made a fresh representation relying upon a subsequent circular issued by NABARD providing for grant of compassionate appointment. It is this claim of petitioner which has been rejected by the order impugned.
I have heard Sri H.P. Mishra, Learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.K. Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent bank and also perused the materials available on records.
The issue as to which would be the applicable policy for grant of compassionate appointment has been examined by the Apex Court in the case of Canara Bank Vs. Mahesh Kumar 2015(7) SCC 412 and it is held that the policy applicable on the date of accrual of cause alone will govern the claim raised for compassionate appointment. It is also observed tht the Court that the compassionate appointment cannot be made in the absence of Rules and Regulations, and request has to be considered strictly in accordance with the governing scheme, and no discretion is left with any authority to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme.
This judgment has been relied upon in a subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Indian Bank and others Vs. Promila and another, (2020) 1 UPLBEC 4. Paras 15 and 16 of the subsequent judgment in the case of Indian Bank (supra) are reproduced hereinafter:-
"15. The question of applicability of any subsequent Scheme really does not apply in view of the judgment of this Court in Canara Bank2. Thus, it would not be appropriate to examine the case of the respondents in the context of subsequent Schemes, but only in the context of the Scheme of 4.4.1979, the terms of which continued to be applicable even as per the new Scheme of 5.11.1985, i.e. the Scheme applicable to the respondents. There is no provision in this Scheme for any ex gratia payment. The option of compassionate appointment was available only if the full amount of gratuity was not taken, something which was done. Thus, having taken the full amount of gratuity, the option of compassionate appointment really was not available to the respondents.
16. We may also notice that though the subsequent Schemes were not applicable, even if benefit was sought to be given of those Schemes, initial non-disclosure and subsequent disclosure by respondent No.1, of her employment and her emoluments would disentitle her under those Schemes, too. Thus, when the appellant was calling upon the respondents to apply under the subsequent Schemes, that could have been beneficial to the 2(supra) respondents only if they were entitled to any of the benefits under that Scheme. That could not happen because the benchmark provided in those subsequent Schemes took the emoluments of respondents beyond the prescribed limit, so as to disentitle them from both, compassionate employment and ex gratia payment."
In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is apparent that the petitioner's claim for grant of compassionate appointment, on the basis of a subsequent circular, would have no merit. The cause of action in the present case arose either on 14.12.2017 or on 15.5.2018 but on none of these dates, the subsequent circular was available.
Writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 23.3.2021
n.u.
