Bombay High Court
Shubham S/O Chhotelal Lilhare vs Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Finance Thr. ... on 1 December, 2023
Author: Anuja Prabhudessai
Bench: Anuja Prabhudessai
2023:BHC-NAG:16957-DB
-1- 39 wp 5072.22.jud..odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 5072 OF 2022
PETITIONER : 1. Shubham s/o Chhotelal Lilhare,
Aged about 26 years, Occ. Agriculture,
R/o Village Nagra, Tahsil & District
Gondia
//VERSUS//
RESPONDENTS : 1. Government of India, Ministry of
Finance, Through it Secretary,
Department of Financial Services,
Jeevan Deep Building, Parliament
Street, New Delhi - 110001.
2. National Bank for Agriculture and
Rural Development, [NABARD],
Maharashtra Regional Office, through
its Chief General Manager, 54,
Wellesley Road, Shivaji Nagar,
Pune-411005
3. Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank,
Government of India, Bank of India &
Government of Maharashtra
Undertaking Having its Head Office at
2nd & 3rd Floors, "Chandraprasth", Plot
No.6, Deendayal Nagar, Ring Road,
Nagpur-440022, through its
Chairman.
4. Vidharbha Konkan Gramin Bank,
Government of India, Bank of India &
Government of Maharashtra
Undertaking Having its Regional
Office at Shri Shyam Bahvan,
Radhakrishnan Marg, Station Road,
Bhandara-441904, through its
Regional Manager
-2- 39 wp 5072.22.jud..odt
**************************************************************
Mr. R.M. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr V.A. Brahme, Advocate for respondent Nos.3 and 4.
**************************************************************
CORAM : SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI AND
MRS. VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.J.
DATED : DECEMBER, 1st 2023.
ORAL JUDGMENT (PER:-SMT. ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI, J.)
Heard.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with
consent of learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.
3. The petitioner made an application for appointment on
compassionate ground in view of death of his father on 18.10.2018
who was working as Office Attendant with respondent No.4-Bank,
which is a Regional Rural Bank (R.R.B) under the administration
and control of respondent Nos.1 and 2. The application has been
rejected mainly on the ground that the father of the petitioner had
expired prior to R.R.B. adopting the Scheme.
-3- 39 wp 5072.22.jud..odt
4. The petitioner has relied on the decision in Writ Petition
No.2071/2020 with other connected matters (Gaurav Bharat
Ladhe Vs. The Union of India and Ors.) wherein the challenge was
to the termination of appointments on compassionate ground. One
of the questions raised was that the appointments were not in
consonance with Government of India instructions. It was alleged
that the scheme cannot be made applicable with retrospective effect
and would not be applicable when the employee had expired prior
to R.R.B adopting the scheme. This Court has observed that the
Scheme does permit appointment on compassionate ground, if the
death of the employee had occurred within the span of five years
preceding the adoption of the Scheme. In the instant case, the
death of the father of the petitioner was undisputedly within the
span of five years preceding the adoption of the Scheme.
5. Hence, petition is allowed with direction to the
respondent Nos.3 and 4 to reconsider the case of the petitioner for
being appointed on compassionate ground with respondent No.4-
Bank in view of death of his father late Shri Chhotelal Lilhare.
Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 shall take the decision in the matter
within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
-4- 39 wp 5072.22.jud..odt
6. The Writ Petition stands disposed of. No costs.
(VRUSHALI V. JOSHI, J.) (ANUJA PRABHUDESSAI,J)
manisha
Signed by: Mrs. Manisha Shewale
Designation: PA To Honourable Judge
Date: 11/12/2023 10:44:04
