Smt. Meenu Bakshi vs Union Of India And Others
2001 Latest Caselaw 496 Del

ORDER

Mukundakam Sharma, J.

1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground in one branches of State Bank of India, in Delhi, after quashing the order dated 27.11.96 whereby the Bank has declined to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground.

2. The husband of the petitioner was working as an Accountant in the Jodhpur Branch of State Bank of India. A criminal case was registered against the husband of the petitioner on the allegation that he perpetrated a fraud to the tune of RS. 4,53,000/- while working as Accountant at I.A.F. Station Branch, Jodhpur. The said case was investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and in its report the CBI recommended prosecution against the husband of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner was placed under suspension on 1.2.92 and a charge sheet was also issued to him. However, the husband of the petitioner expired on 1.6.94 at the age of 40 years after completing 23 years and one month service in the bank. With the death of the husband of the petitioner, all the proceedings initiated against him were dropped.

3. A letter dt. 24.6.94 was sent by the petitioner to the Supreme Court of India contending, inter alia, that while her husband was in illegal custody, he was mercilessly and severely tortured, which caused his untimely death. In the said letter the petitioner requested for registering a murder case against the concerned officers and to punish them for their criminal acts. On the basis of the said letter of the petitioner Criminal Writ Petition No. 297/94 was registered in the Supreme Court. A copy of the order passed by the Supreme Court on 30.4.96 is placed on record, which indicates that on the basis of the said letter written by the petitioner, a report of the medical board was called for. The medical report was submitted by the medical board on 4.4.96 along with the opinion of the said board. The Supreme Court dismissed the said writ petition holding that in view of report of the medical board dt. 4.4.96 and the opinion expressed therein, the case registered on the basis of letter of the petitioner was not found to be a fit case to be examined and decided under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by enforcement of a public law remedy. It was, however, made clear that it would be open to the petitioner to resort to the private law remedy, if any, for the relief claimed in the writ petition. It was also urged before the Supreme Court that the terminal benefits to the petitioner have not been paid, whereupon the counsel appearing for the Bank stated that all such benefits due to the petitioner would be paid to her.

4. It transpires from the record that the terminal benefits on account of death of husband of the petitioner were paid to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed the present petition seeking for appointment in one of the branches of the Bank on compassionate ground.

5. In the counter affidavit filed, it is stated by the respondent/Bank that the disciplinary proceeding against the husband of the petitioner and the prosecution launched were dropped on the expiry of the husband of the petitioner on 1.6.94.

6. The allegation was that the husband of the petitioner perpetrated a fraud to the tune of Rs. 4,53,000/- while working as Accountant at IAF Station Branch, jodhpur. It was also mentioned in the counter affidavit that while working as Accountant at Kalyanpuri, New Delhi, the petitioner committed some irregularities in the year 1982-83 also and in respect of the same a punishment was also inflicted upon the petitioner lowering his basic pay from Rs. 1440/- to Rs. 700/-. It as further also stated that the appointment of dependents of deceased employee in the State Bank of India is regulated by the scheme called 'Scheme for Appointment on Compassionate Grounds. The relevant portion having relevance to the facts of the present case is extracted below:-

"In cases where the disciplinary action had been taken against the employee or disciplinary proceedings were pending/contemplated against him/her, appointment of dependent on compassionate grounds may be considered only after obtaining prior concurrence of the Government. Such cases may be referred to the Central Office through local Head Office with detailed and reasoned recommendation."

7. It is stated that in terms of the aforesaid guidelines/scheme, the matter of appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground was referred to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), on 13.8.96 for obtaining prior concurrence of the Government and that the Government of India after considering all the facts and circumstances, on 23.10.96, declined the request of the petitioner for appointment in clerical cadre in the respondent/bank on compassionate ground.

8. The relief sought for in the present writ petition is, therefore, required to be examined in the context of the aforesaid facts and records. Counsel appearing for the petition submitted that merely because criminal case had been initiated, one does not become a person of doubtful integrity and so long the person is not convicted in the eyes of law, he should be treated a an innocent and not guilty of the offences alleged against him. In support of his contention, he relied upon the decisions in STATE OF GUJARAT VS. SURYAKANT CHUNILAL SHAH reported in SLJ 1999 (2) SC 28, RAJIV GANDHI EKTA SAMITI VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER , PHOOLWATI VS. UNION OF INDIA , SUSHMA GOSAIN VS. UNION OF INDIA and in UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL VS. STATE OF HARYANA . It was further submitted by him that so far compassionate appointments are concerned, there are only two tests which are to be complied, being (i) whether there is any immediate need of assistance and (ii) there being no other earning member in the family and in the distress that could be caused to the family when there is no earning member in the family.

9. Counsel appearing for the respondent-bank and for Union of India, however, submitted that the case of such appointment on compassionate ground is governed by the guideline/scheme propounded by the bank, which would indicate that all such cases where the deceased was involved in criminal/ departmental proceedings, his case is to be referred to the Government of India for obtaining prior concurrence of the Government. Counsel also drew my attention to the provisions of the aforesaid scheme and drew my specific attention to Para 1.3, which deals with the appointment under the Scheme. It is provided therein that the Bank at its discretion appoint in the Bank in any post, a spouse or a dependent who would undertake in writing, and in the manner decided by the bank to look after the family of the deceased employee. Such appointment on compassionate ground could be made only when the family of the deceased employee is unable to meet the financial crisis resulting from the employees death. It is also settled law that the object of compassionate appointment is to enable the penurious family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to provide employment. As indicated from the provisions referred to hereinabove, the appointment of dependents of a deceased employee, who is involved in criminal or disciplinary proceedings is subject to prior concurrence of the Central Govt. Such compassionate appointment is also discretionary. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the Central Govt. declined appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground in the bank. It could be that while giving the said decision the factor that the husband of the petitioner was involved in a criminal/departmental proceeding, was taken notice of but it cannot be said that such consideration is totally out of context. It also cannot be said that the discretion exercised herein by the respondent/bank is in any manner arbitrary. Upon death of her husband, the petitioner has been paid the retrial benefits amounting to near about Rs. Four lacs. The petitioner is also getting the monthly pension of Rs. 2718/-. All the proceedings initiated against the husband of the petitioner for perpetrating fraud to the tune of Rs. 4,53,000/- have been closed upon the death of the husband of the petitioner. The husband of the petitioner also died in the year 1994 and more than six years have gone by. It is also not a case that the family of the deceased employee is unable to meet the financial crisis resulting from the death of husband of the petitioner. The family has by now tied over the sudden financial crisis, if any, which was faced by the family immediately on the death and, therefore, in the present case, I am not impressed by the submission of the counsel appearing for the petitioner. Relief sought in the petition cannot be granted.

10. In the result the writ petition has no merit and is dismissed accordingly.