Chattisgarh High Court
Aman Kushwaha vs State Bank Of India on 6 December, 2021
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WA No. 251 of 2020
Aman Kushwaha S/o Rajendra Prasad Kushwaha, aged about 26
years, R/o Bhaiyathan Road, Mandirpara, Surajpur, District Surajpur,
Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
Versus
1. State Bank of India, through its Chief Manager, Surajpur Branch,
District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh
2. The Regional Manager, State Bank of India, Ambikapur, Districtr
Surguja, Chhattisgarh
---- Respondents
(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, Advocate.
For Respondents : Mr. P.R.Patankar, Advocate.
Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Mr. N.K.Chandravanshi, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice
06/12/2021
Heard Mr. Akhand Pratap Pandey, learned counsel for the
appellant as well as Mr. P.R.Patankar, learned counsel for the
respondents.
2. This appeal is barred by limitation of 197 days. To condone
delay, the appellant has filed an application, registered as IA No. 1 of
2020. Notice was issued on 09.07.2021. No objection is filed to the
application.
3. Mr. Patankar submits that he is not opposing the prayer for
condonation of delay.
4. In view of the above, delay is condoned. IA No. 1 of 2020
stands disposed of.
5. This appeal is presented against an order dated 26.06.2019
which reads as follows:
"1. Shri P.R. Patankar, Advocate, enters appearance
on behalf of respondents on advance copy and
submits that the respondent-Bank have already
revised their scheme of compassionate appointment
vide scheme dated 13.05.2011. According to the
respondents, they have already issued letter to the
petitioner intimating him that the petitioner would only
be entitled for ex-gratia monetary compensation and
that as per scheme they would not be entitled for
compassionate appointment.
2. In view of the submission made by the counsel for
the respondents-Bank, reserving the right of the
petitioner to act upon it in accordance with rules, the
present writ petition stands disposed of."
6. The father of the appellant died-in-harness while working as
Senior Head Messenger, on 12.11.2018. The appellant claimed
compassionate appointment on the basis of circular dated 11.08.2014.
7. A perusal of the order of the learned Single Judge goes to show
that the contention was advanced by Mr. Patankar that the scheme of
compassionate appointment was revised vide scheme dated 13.05.2011.
When the appellant is relying on the scheme/circular dated 11.08.2014,
such scheme could not have been revised by a scheme dated
13.05.2011. The learned Single Judge did not advert to the scheme on
which reliance was placed by the appellant.
8. In that view of the matter, we are of the view that the order of
the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained and accordingly, the same
is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge
for fresh consideration.
9. As the matter pertains to compassionate appointment, we direct
the respondents herein to file their reply since at the time of disposal of
the writ petition, no reply was filed by the respondents, within a period of
four weeks from today.
10. The Registry will list the writ petition before the learned Single
Judge on 14th January, 2022 as per roster.
11. Accordingly, this appeal stands disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (N.K.Chandravanshi)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
Amit
