Allahabad High Court
Robin Priyank Kumar vs Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank And ... on 20 August, 2025
Author: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
2025:AHC:141705
Reserved :- 13/08/2025
Delivered :- 20/08/2025
Court No. - 5
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 2338 of 2021
Petitioner :- Robin Priyank Kumar
Respondent :- Chief Manager, Punjab National Bank And Another
Counsel for Petitioner :- Nipun Singh,Sumit Suri
Counsel for Respondent :- Sanjai Singh,Ashok Bhatnagar
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. In present case, father of petitioner died in harness while working as Deputy Manager with respondent-bank viz. Punjab National Bank on 24.03.2017. Initially, petitioner's elder brother was considered for compassionate appointment, however, his application was rejected since condition of family of deceased was not found to be indigent. Order of rejection is not on record.
2. In aforesaid circumstances, petitioner herein has filed an application for compassionate appointment on a ground that not only petitioner and his mother were thrown out by his elder brother but their financial position was very bad. Petitioner has submitted all requisite documents, however, his application was rejected vide impugned order dated 08.01.2021 on two grounds that total monthly income of family of deceased employee from all sources is Rs. 47777/- which is more than 60% of last drawn salary of deceased employee i.e. Rs. 44275/-. Secondly, when father of the petitioner died, he has left with a service of only 5 months.
3. Aforesaid order dated 08.01.2021 was passed on basis of an order dated 10.09.2020 passed by this Court in earlier round of litigation in Writ A No. 7153/2020. Relevant part of impugned order dated 08.01.2021 is quoted below :-
"Accordingly, upon the directions of Hon'ble High Court, the fresh proposal of Shri. Robin Priyank Kumar was considered by the Competent Authority. In the above case the deceased employee had left behind 4 members, viz wife, 2 sons and daughter. Daughter is married and not dependent upon the family. Both the sons are married. The family is in receipt of terminal dues of Rs.26.65 lacs besides other receivable of Rs.4.63 lacs. They are also in receipt of family pension of Rs.26920/- p.m. The family has own accommodation to live. Late Shri. Saini expired at the age of 59 years and 8 months and at the time of death the employee had remaining service of only 4 months. As per the extant guidelines of Compassionate Appointment, it was found that the total monthly income of the family of deceased employee from all sources(i.e Rs.47777/-) is more than 60% of the last drawn salary (i.e Rs.44275/-) of the deceased employee. Hence, it was found by the Competent Authority that Shri. Robin Priyank Kumar s/o Late Shri. Krishan Kumar Saini is not eligible for compassionate appointment in terms of Bank's extant guidelines for Compassionate Appointment.
The intent of the Scheme is to provide help and succor to the family in the exigencies provided in the scheme. It cannot be made a mode of appointment through back door entry. The Compassionate appointment is not a mode of recruitment. The basic requirement of meeting the immediate crisis become redundant particularly when the family is getting family pension besides terminal dues.
In view of the decision dated 10.09.2020 of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 7153/2020 & in light of position stated above, proposal for compassionate appointment to Shri Robin Priyank Kumar, son of, Late Shri. Krishan Kumar Saini, is a fit case to be declined."
4. Further case of petitioner is that his claim was also rejected on a ground that his father died at the age of 59 years and 8 months i.e. at the time of death, he had a services of only 4 months which was a factor also to reject the claim in terms of Clause 4.2 of Scheme for Compassionate Appointment to a Dependant Family Member of Deceased Employee/Employee retired on Medical Grounds applicable in PNB. For reference, Clause 4.2 is quoted below :-
"4.2 For the purpose of the Scheme, "employee" would mean and include only a confirmed regular employee who was serving full time or part-time on scale wages, at the time of death/retirement on medical grounds, before reaching age of 55 years and does not include any one engaged on contract/temporary/casual or any person who is paid on commission basis."
5. Sri Sumit Suri, learned counsel for petitioner has not much disputed the amount taken note in calculation, however, he is aggrieved by manner of calculation that while determining the financial position or total income of family of deceased, components such as family pension and other retiral benefits may be ignored and for that he has placed reliance upon judgments of this Court as well as Supreme Court in Dhiraj Kumar Dixit vs. G.M. (Personnel), UCO Bank and others, Writ Petition No. 23899 of 2000 decided on 31.07.2002 and Govind Prakash Verma vs. LIC and others, (2005) 10 SCC 289.
6. Learned counsel has also submitted that Clause 4.2 was also dealt with in Dhiraj Kumar Dixit (supra) which was also a part of scheme of compassionate appointment in UCO Bank and such criteria was set aside. The prayer to set aside Clause 4.2 was added by way of amendment in present petition.
7. Per contra, Sri Ashok Bhatnagar, learned counsel for respondent-bank has fairly submitted that claim of petitioner was not rejected in terms of Clause 4.2 and case of petitioner was considered on basis of income of family of deceased from all sources. He has further submitted that petitioner is aged about 34 years and well educated i.e. he has passed MBA in Finance and Marketing from a college at Lucknow in 2007. The petitioner has not disclosed in the application about his past experience or that he was working or not from 2007 to 2020, whereas in the application submitted by mother of petitioner, she has stated that his son is not in a proper and attractive job.
8. Learned counsel has also submitted that aforesaid declaration was misleading since petitioner was an employee of a company viz. Unicorn which was indicated from email-id of petitioner i.e. [email protected]. Learned counsel has also referred paragraph 15, 16 and 17 of his counter affidavit which are quoted below :-
"15. That the contents of paragraph 18 of the Writ Petition as stated are not admitted and are denied. As per the representation dated 28.09.20 filed by the petitioner he has claimed himself to be an MBA Graduate, married and was 34 years at the time of making the representation. He has also claimed that he had completed his MBA degree at the age of 21 years. His mother had filed an application in support of the claim of the petitioner wherein she has stated that both his sons are not in "proper and attractive appropriate job till date". The petitioner has not stated anywhere in his application that he and his family were totally dependent on his father.
16. That further in reply to the contents of paragraph 18 of the Writ Petition it is submitted that the petitioner had in his identification mentioned his email id as [email protected]. This email id is only possible when the person is an employee of the company UNICON. It is further submitted that this email id is usually given to only its employees. It is for this reason that the petitioner deliberately concealed his representation dated 28.09.20 and as such the petitioner has not come with clean hands and is not entitled to any relief under this extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
17. That the contents of paragraph 19 of the Writ Petition as stated are not admitted and are denied. It is wrong to say that the widow of the deceased employee is not having any income besides the monthly pension income of Rs. 25,495/-. It is submitted that the widow of the deceased employee is getting the monthly pension of Rs. 26,920/- and has also received ex-gratia payment of post terminal fund amounting to Rs. 27,21,843.99 which on the basis of notional income as per the extant guidelines comes to Rs. 47,777/- per month being more than 60% of the last drawn salary of the deceased employee and as such no penurious circumstances existed in as much as that the widow of the deceased employee had received a sum of Rs. 27,21,843.99 towards provident fund, gratuity, leave encashment, contributory benefit fund and staff welfare financial aid besides a family pension of Rs. 26,920/- per month. Thus the family was not living in penurious condition and the object of Compassionate Appointment to tide over any immediate financial crises was not applicable in the case of the petitioner."
9. In reply to above submissions, learned counsel for petitioner has submitted that petitioner has denied allegation of making any misleading statements.
10. I have considered above submissions and perused the records.
11. Application of petitioner's elder brother was rejected for compassionate appointment, however, same is not on record. Petitioner has passed MBA way back in the year 2007 and he is a married man also, therefore, in normal circumstances, it could not be accepted that he remained unemployed for more than 13 years. Petitioner has not disclosed in very specific words that he remained unemployed for such a long period since in serial no.7, he has only declared his income to be NIL and has not specifically denied that he has never worked in Unicorn. For reference, paragraph 16 of rejoinder affidavit is quoted below :-
"16. That the contents of paragraph no.15 and 16 of the counter affidavit are misconceived, incorrect and hence denied. In reply, the contents of paragraph no.18 of the writ petition are reiterated. It is further submitted that the petitioner has not made any concealment of application dated 28.09.2020 as the same was being filed by the petitioner in compliance of the order passed by this Hon'ble Court dated 10.09.2020 in Writ-A No.7153/2020. Therefore, the allegation made in the paragraph under reply is false and baseless and as such, the relief claimed by the petitioner is liable to be granted."
12. Aforesaid reply is a very vague reply and the petitioner has not denied official email-id of a company viz. Unicorn.
13. As referred above, since learned counsel for respondent-bank has specifically denied that claim of petitioner was rejected in terms of Clause 4.2, therefore, Court is not entering in regard to prayer to challenge it since Court takes note that in similar circumstances, such Clause was held bad in law in Dhiraj Kumar Dixit (supra) and Court also takes note that no other condition was challenged.
14. Now Court proceeds to consider whether determination of income of family of deceased employee from all sources are correctly calculated or not and for that Court takes note of declaration made by petitioner in the application and undisputedly, family pension is more than last drawn salary of deceased employee.
15. The Punjab National Bank has a very detailed scheme wherein manner of calculation was specifically provided and learned counsel for petitioner has not able to show that any error was committed while determining total income of family of deceased employee in terms of said scheme.
16. Court also takes note of Dhiraj Kumar Dixit and Govind Prakash (supras), however, Court is of the opinion that without specific challenge to other provisions of scheme and that some factors were additionally mentioned in the scheme of UCO Bank in Dhiraj Kumar Dixit (supra) such as addition of normal calculative interest which is not a case in PNB, therefore, Court finds that there is no error in calculation of total income of family of deceased employee from all sources.
17. Court also takes note that father of petitioner died 8 years ago, therefore, aspect of delay is also against the petitioner.
18. On the basis of aforesaid discussion, this Court does not find any ground to interfere in impugned order.
19. Accordingly, writ petition lacks merit, hence, dismissed.
Order Date :- August 20, 2025
N. Sinha
[Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J.]
