Firoz Khan vs Bank Of India Through Chief M.D. Mumbai ...
2024 Latest Caselaw 256 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Firoz Khan vs Bank Of India Through Chief M.D. Mumbai ... on 4 January, 2024

Author: Neeraj Tiwari

Bench: Neeraj Tiwari

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?A.F.R.
 
Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:1662
 
Court No. - 33
 

 
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 848 of 2019
 

 
Petitioner :- Firoz Khan
 
Respondent :- Bank Of India Through Chief M.D. Mumbai And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Sharad Malviya,Yogendra Singh
 
Counsel for Respondent :- R.V. Pandey
 

 
Hon'ble Neeraj Tiwari,J.
 

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri R.V. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. Present petition has been filed with the following prayers:-

"(i) Issue, a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari to quash the order dated 15.11.2017, which was communicated on 24.11.2017, rejecting the application of petitioner on compassionate appointment.

(ii) Issue, a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent Bank to provide employment to the petitioner on compassionate ground as per his qualification."

3. Brief facts of the case are that father of petitioner was working as Branch Manager at Mahoba Branch. During the course of service, he died on 19.1.2017. After his death, mother of petitioner has received Rs.10,000,00/- as Gratuity Fund, Rs. 15,160,00/- as Provident Fund, Rs. 6,24,178/- as leave encashment, Rs. 17,000,00/- against TDR and Rs. 2,000,00/- from LIC insurance amounting to a sum of Rs. 50,40,178/-. Father of petitioner had liabilities to pay Rs. 5,97,000/- towards bank. After deduction of the same, total amount paid is Rs.44,43,178/-. Mother of petitioner is also getting family pension of Rs. 24,718/- per month.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in light of Para 17 of Sub Para (iii) of the Bank of India Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, application for appointment on compassionate ground cannot be rejected on the ground that family of employee has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes, therefore, order is bad and liable to be set aside.

5. Per Contra, Sri R.V. Pandey, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that Para 17 of Sub Para (iii) of the Bank of India Scheme for Compassionate Appointment clearly says that while deciding the application liability has to be taken into consideration. In the present case, undisputedly, total liability upon the father of petitioner was of Rs.5,97,000/- towards bank, therefore, after deduction of the same, apart from monthly family pension of Rs.24,718/-, mother of petitioner has received Rs. 44,43,178/-, therefore, there is no illegality in denial of compassionate appointment to petitioner.

6. In support of his contention, he has placed reliance upon the judgments of Apex Court as well as this Court in the cases of General Manager (D & PB) and others vs. Kunti Tiwary and another (2004) 7 SCC 271, Punjab National Bank and others Vs. Ashwani Kumar Taneja 2004 (7) SCC 265, State Bank of India Vs. Jaspal Kaur (2007) 9 SCC 571, State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kumar (Special Appeal No. 14 of 2007), Punjan National Bank Vs. Deepak Pandey (Special Appeal No. 867 of 2006) and Smt. Nanda Tambe vs. Union of India and others passed in Writ-A No. 54592 of 2004.

7. In rejoinder argument, learned counsel for the petitioner could not dispute the factual as well as legal submissions so made by the learned counsel for the respondents.

8. I have considered the rival submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments as well as record. The main issue is before this Court that about the interpretation of Para 17 of Sub Para (iii) of the Bank of India Scheme for Compassionate Appointment, which is being quoted hereinbelow:-

"iii An application for compassionate appointment should, however, not be rejected merely on the ground that the family of the employee has received the benefits under the various welfare schemes. While considering a request for appointment on compassionate ground a balanced and objective assessment of the financial condition of the family has to be made taking into account its assets and liabilities (including the benefits received under the various welfare schemes mentioned above) and all other relevant factors such as the presence of an earning member, size of the family etc."

9. From perusal of the same, it is apparently clear that while considering the application of petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground, it is required on the part of Bank to consider the liability of petitioner. Further, after deduction of the same, mother of petitioner was paid Rs.44,43,178/- alongwith family pension of Rs.24,718/-.

10. The very same matter was came up before the Apex Court as well as this Court in the cases of General Manager (D & PB) and others (Supra), Punjab National Bank and others Supra), State Bank of India Vs. Jaspal Kaur (Supra), State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kumar (Supra), Punjab National Bank Vs. Deepak Pandey (Supra) and Smt. Nanda Tambe (Supra).

11. Similar issue came up before this Court for adjudication in the matter of General Manager (D & PB) and others (Supra). The employee Kunti Tiwary was working in the State Bank of India and died in-harness on 16.01.1998. Application for compassionate appointment was made when deceased's son was minor. He attained majority on 25.02.2000. Thereafter he applied for compassionate appointment. Financial condition of family was examined by Bank and it was found that deceased employee's family was paid Provident Fund of Rs.3,33,410/-, Gratuity of Rs.1,73,987/- and Leave Encashment of Rs. 1,01,344/-. The deceased employee had an investment of Rs. 66,000/- in share of State Bank of India, etc. Family was paid a pension of Rs.5,583/- per month. The application, therefore, was rejected on the ground that possessed assets and monthly income was such as not to hold family in penury condition. The family also consisted of a widow, two sons and a daughter. Rejection of application was challenged in Writ Court and a learned Single Judge dismissed writ petition. In intra Court appeal judgment of learned Single Judge was set aside and direction was issued to Bank to give compassionate appointment. This order came to be challenged in Supreme Court, who allowed appeal and restored judgment of learned Single Judge.

12. Again similar issue came up before this Court in the matter of Punjab National Bank and others (Supra). Father of Ashwani Kumar Taneja, a Class IV employee, died in harness on 03.12.1999 leaving behind his mother, widow, two sons and one daughter. Request for compassionate appointment was declined by Bank, whereagainst writ petition was allowed by learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court and Letters Patent Appeal was dismissed by Division Bench. The High Court held that for considering application for compassionate appointment, amount paid towards gratuity, provident fund etc. cannot be looked into. The matter went in appeal to Supreme Court and it held that the said amount can be taken into consideration and judgment of High Court was reversed holding that benefit paid after death can be considered for judging financial hardship.

13. This issue was again adjudicated in the matter of State Bank of India Vs. Jaspal Kaur (Supra). One Sukhbir Inder Singh, husband of Jaspal Kaur died in harness on 01.08.1999 while working as Record Assistant. An application for compassionate appointment of widow was rejected by Bank. In writ petition filed by Jaspal Kaur, High Court directed Bank to reconsider the application, which was again declined. The matter again came to High Court, which took a view that retiral benefits of Rs.4,57,607/- paid to the family as terminal benefits cannot be said to be a sufficient amount to bring away family from financial hardship. Supreme Court found that family of deceased consisted of a widow, two daughters and a son. Terminal benefits were paid as Rs.4,57,607/- and monthly pension was Rs.2,055/- and held that in the above facts and circumstances denial of compassionate appointment on the ground that family was not in penurious condition was justified.

14. Division Bench of this Court has also considered the very same issue in the matter of State Bank of India Vs. Ajay Kumar (Supra) and Court found that terminal benefits of Rs.3.79 lakhs, Rs.1 lakh from LIC policy and gross monthly income of Rs.4,000/- justify denial of compassionate appointment on the ground that family is not in penurious condition.

15. In the matter of Punjab National Bank Vs. Deepak Pandey (Supra), this Court found that family pension of Rs.4,807/- per month after death of deceased employee justify denial of compassionate appointment on the ground that family is not in penurious condition.

16. In the matter of Smt. Nanda Tambe (Supra), petitioner has received terminal benefits of Rs.2,38,975/- alongwith family pension of Rs. 4,969/- and further application was filed for compassionate appointment which was rejected by this Court vide order dated 28.3.2019 after considering the relevant provisions as well as law laid down by the Court.

17. In the present case, petitioner's father died on 19.1.2017. The amount of family pension payable to petitioner is Rs. 24,178/- per month and terminal benefit paid to Rs. 44,43,178/-. The above amount is such which has been considered in the cases referred to above and denial of compassionate appointment has been held valid.

18. This Court is also of the view that while deciding the application for appointment on compassionate ground, Para 17 of Sub Para (iii) of the Bank of India Scheme for Compassionate Appointment has to be taken into consideration in letter and spirit. It is to be seen as to whether terminal benefits is sufficient to meet liabilities of family or not. In case authority is satisfied that without providing appointment on compassionate ground, family would not be in position to meet the financial crisis, only then appointment may be given to family member subject to fulfillment of required qualification and eligibility, etc.

19. So far as present case is concerned, family of deceased employee has received sufficient money alongwith family pension to meet the financial liabilities, therefore, there is no occasion for this Court to interfere with the impugned order dated 15.11.2017. Respondents have rightly rejected the application for grant of compassionate appointment.

20. Accordingly, writ petition lacks merit and is dismissed. No order as to costs.

Order Date :- 4.1.2024

Junaid