Sudhir S/O Sakharam Joshi vs Bank Of Maharashtra And Anr.
2002 Latest Caselaw 996 Bom

JUDGMENT

R.K. Batta, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court for directions to the respondents for appointment in the Clerical cadre on compassionate ground.

2. The petitioner's case, in brief, is that his father late Sakharam Laxman Joshi was working at Jatharpeth, Akola branch of respondent No. 1 as a Peon, He died on 17-12-1993 and left behind his widow, two married daughters, an unmarried daughter and the petitioner as his only legal heirs. The petitioner's mother applied for appointment of the present petitioner in the post of Clerk on account of the death of the father of petitioner. By application dated 29-12-1993, the petitioner also applied for compassionate appointment giving all details of the dependents of the deceased, moveable and immoveable property, other assets and liabilities. The Branch Manager of respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 5-7-1994 rejected the application for compassionate appointment by merely stating that the application! cannot be considered. No reasons whatsoever as to why the application could not be considered were given in the said letter. The petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment in terms of 'Annexures-A and B' which provide for compassionate appointments. In such circumstances, even an administrative body is required to give reasons as to why the application could not be considered, but no such reasons were given by the respondent-Bank. The petitioner again applied for reconsideration on 12-7-1994 and once again without giving any reasons, the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 1-9-1994 by the Branch Manager of the respondent No. 1 that the Head Office has informed that there was no change in the decision already communicated. It is in this background that the petitioner was forced to approach this Court for appointment on compassionate ground. In the return filed by the respondents on 20th September 1995, for the first time, the respondents came out with the reason of rejection which is that the father of the petitioner had served substantial terms of his service with the respondent-Bank and was due to retire in a short span of time. According to the respondents, whatever appointments are referred to by the petitioner were well merited mostly for reasons such as financial difficulties and crisis and other problems. According to the respondent-Bank, it has exercised the discretion in the most judicious and reasonable manner inasmuch as it is not obligatory on the Bank that each and every application for compassionate appointment be granted. It is also stated in the return that a lumpsum amount has been released in favour of the petitioner's family as retiral benefits which were admissible to late Sakharam Laxman Joshi and that the family was under no financial crisis or difficulty inasmuch as there were ample sources of income as also property left by late Sakharam Laxman Joshi.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner drew our attention to 'Annexures-A and B' which are on the subject of appointment on compassionate ground. In this connection, our attention has been drawn to paragraph 2 of 'Annexure-A' which reads as under:--

2. Appointment under the Scheme--

The Bank may at its discretion appoint the widow or son or daughter of the deceased employee or near relative nominated by the widow who will look after family of the dependant. If deceased employee is a widow or bachelor, the bank may exercise its discretion in this regard by making enquiries of the next elder in the family. The appointment under this scheme shall be made only in Clerical/Full time Subordinate cadre. No appointment in 'Officer Cadre' will be given.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner stated that the petitioner had the essential qualification for the appointment to the post of Clerical cadre. According to the learned Advocate for the petitioner, the petitioner was entitled to appointment on compassionate ground like many others who were appointed under similar circumstances which is referred in para 6 of the petition. He, therefore, submits that the petition be allowed.

5. On the other hand, learned Advocate for the respondents, urged before us that the discretion:has been judiciously exercised and it does not call for any interference whatsoever since the father of the petitioner had only four years and odd months left for retirement and that lumpsum amount had already been released in favour of the petitioner's family as retiral benefits; that the petitioner's family was under no financial crisis or difficulty; that the dependents of deceased had ample source of income and had enough property to take care of themselves. He, therefore, contends that there is no case made out for compassionate appointment and the petition be dismissed.

6. It is heartening to note that the respondent-Bank does realise that the discretion has to be judiciously exercised but while exercising the discretion it was forgotten that the same has to be judiciously exercised. No reason whatsoever was given while rejecting the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment. The reason given in letter dated 5-7-1994 is that the application cannot be considered. Why it could not be considered and for what reason it could not be considered is not disclosed. Probably at that time it was forgotten that the discretion has to be judiciously exercised and in case of judicious exercise of discretion reason has to be given in order to justify the exercise of judicious discretion. The reply dated 5-7-1994 on the face of it shows arbitrary exercise of discretion. The petitioner had asked the respondents to reconsider his case. This was another opportunity to the respondents to re-examine the case and give reasons as to why the case of the petitioner could not be considered for the purpose of compassionate appointment. Once again by letter dated 1-9-1994, the petitioner was simply informed that there was no change in the decision already communicated to him. Thus, even in letter dated 1-9-1994, no reasons whatsoever were conveyed to the petitioner as to why he could not have appointed on compassionate ground. It is now well settled that even administrative authorities are required to give reasons and when the respondents have themselves stated that the discretion has to be exercised judiciously, the respondents were required to give reasons which have not been given. It was only at a late stage in the day that the respondents came out with the stand that the compassionate appointment cannot be given since the petitioner's father had a short span of time to retire. There is no bar in the scheme that the compassionate appointment cannot be given to the dependents of an employee who had short span of tenure left. In the case under consideration, it is stated by the petitioner that the petitioner's father has four years of service left. This obviously cannot be a ground for rejection. The respondents have also come out with a case that retiral benefits were given to the deceased, but these retiral benefits are given in all cases where compassionate appointment is otherwise permissible. This obviously cannot be a good ground for rejection of the application. The respondents have also in the return tried to come out with a case that the family of the deceased had ample sources of income and property to take care of themselves. No material whatsoever has been placed by the respondents in order to show that any detailed enquiry was made by them in order to determine the financial condition of the deceased family. Learned Advocate for the respondents relies upon 'Annexure-C' and has stated that the position of the deceased's family was financial quite sound. There is nothing on record to show that this aspect had prevailed with the authority while taking decision as no material in respect of the same has been produced before us. However, even a look at 'Annexure-C', it cannot be said that the condition of the family of the deceased was so financially sound that the petitioner was not having any financial crisis. The said 'Annexure-C' shows that Provident Fund of Rs. 39,000/.- was paid to him and besides that there were life insurance policies of Rs. 17,000/-. However, as against the said amounts, loan of Rs. 17,891.70 was outstanding with the bank as housing loan. Besides that, there were loans of Rs. 15,000/- of Employees Co-operative Society and Consumer Loan of Rs. 6,615/-. The amount of Provident Fund and amount of Insurance Polices thus get off set with the liabilities. Besides that, the said annexure shows that income of about Rs. 75,000/- per year from agricultural income. The deceased had left his wife, the present petitioner and an unmarried daughter aged about 22 years who was to be married and expenses for marriage are also required to be incurred. Therefore, the submissions made by learned Advocate for the respondents before us that the financial position of the deceased's family was sound cannot be accepted.

7. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the respondents have wrongly and arbitrarily rejected the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment though his case was covered under the scheme in 'Annexures-A and B'. We, therefore, direct that the respondents shall give an appointment to the petitioner in the Clerical cadre. The petitioner shall report on 1st October 2002 to the respondents for the said purpose. The respondents shall file compliance report before this Court by 10th October 2002. The writ petition is allowed in aforesaid terms and Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (1).