Delhi High Court
Rajeev Dhawan vs Cpio, Mard, The Rti Cell & Anr. on 12 October, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 12th October, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 6611/2007, CM No.4621/2010 (for presenting
documents) & Crl.M.A. No.4913/2011 (u/S 340 Cr.P.C.)
RAJEEV DHAWAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner-in-person.
Versus
CHAIRMAN,
PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK & ANR ... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jagat Arora & Mr. Rajat Arora,
Advocates.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 2529/2011
RAJEEV DHAWAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner-in-person.
Versus
CPIO MARD, THE RTI CELL ..... Respondent
Through: Mr. Jagat Arora & Mr. Rajat Arora,
Advocates.
AND
+ W.P.(C) 4149/2011
RAJEEV DHAWAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Petitioner-in-person.
Versus
CPIO, MARD, THE RTI CELL & ANR. .... Respondents
Through: Mr. Jagat Arora & Mr. Rajat Arora,
Advocates
W.P.(C)6611.2007, 2529&4149/2011 Page 1 of 9
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may Not necessary
be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Not necessary
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Not necessary
in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. W.P.(C) No.6611/2007 has been filed seeking mandamus for
compassionate appointment in the respondent Punjab National Bank
(PNB). While claiming the said relief, it is the case of the petitioner that
the respondent PNB has been discriminating between the various
applicants for compassionate appointment and has not been following a
uniform practice in that regard; accordingly some other reliefs qua
discrimination have also been claimed.
2. The petitioner who is a practicing advocate of this Court has argued
that his father expired on 11th April, 2004; that he applied for
compassionate appointment on 17th June, 2004; that his case was
recommended by the Regional Manager and Zonal Manager of the
respondent Bank but the Head office of the PNB kept the application
pending while continuing to allow the applications of others filed
subsequent to the application of the petitioner; that with effect from 29 th
October, 2004 there was a change in the policy of the Banks; the provision
for compassionate appointment was substituted by ex gratia payment; that
owing to the said change the petitioner was not granted compassionate
appointment though others continued to be appointed on compassionate
grounds even thereafter, compelling him to file the writ petition.
3. Notice of the writ petition was issued and pleadings have been
completed. When the matter was listed before this Court on 4 th September,
2008, after some hearing the counsel for the respondent Bank agreed that
the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment would be
considered and disposed of giving reasons. The said offer of the
respondent Bank was accepted by the petitioner without prejudice to his
rights and contentions.
4. In pursuance to the aforesaid order, the respondent Bank considered
the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and
rejected the same vide order dated 17th October, 2008 at pages 218 and 219
of the writ petition's paper book.
5. Rule was issued in the writ petition on 25 th November, 2010. The
petitioner filed CM No.4913/2011 under Section 340 Cr.P.C.; vide order
dated 27th April, 2011 it was directed that the said application will be heard
along with the writ petition. The petitioner appearing in person and the
counsel for the respondent Bank have been heard.
6. The respondent Bank in the order dated 17th October, 2008 (supra)
has rejected the application of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment on the following grounds:-
(i) That after the death of the father of the petitioner, the family
got net amount of `7,29,456/- (after adjustment of loans from Bank,
Society etc.) in respect of terminal dues besides amount of `78,300/-
in PPF account and pension of `992/- from Jeevan Suraksha Policy.
The family was having NSCs worth `75,000/- and also a house to
live in;
(ii) That the object of compassionate appointment was to ensure
that the family of an employee dying in harness was not left without
any means of livelihood ;
(iii) The family of the petitioner could not be said to be in such
financial crisis or distress.
7. The petitioner on enquiry informs that his father died at the age of
56 years owing to cancer and leaving behind his widow, the petitioner as
son and a daughter. On further enquiry it is informed that the petitioner at
the time of the demise of his father was 28 years of age and his sister was
26 years of age. On yet further inquiry it is informed that the mother of the
petitioner was a housewife and both petitioner and his sister were then
graduates, though it is stated that both were unemployed. The petitioner
further informs that he completed his LLB in the year 2009 and since then
has been practicing as an Advocate; that his sister did her Masters after the
demise of her father and was married in the year 2006.
8. The main argument of the petitioner is of discrimination. The
petitioner in this regard has invited attention to the order dated 27 th June,
2003 of the respondent Bank at pages 750 to 753 of the paper book, of
providing compassionate appointment to the daughter of one Sh. R.L.
Joshi employed as Chief Manager of the respondent Bank. The petitioner
therefrom states that though the said family had assets/terminal benefits of
`16.64 lacs i.e. much more than the assets of the family of the petitioner
but still compassionate appointment was granted.
9. However a reading of the order granting compassionate appointment
to the daughter of Sh. R.L. Joshi shows that said Sh. R.L. Joshi had died in
a road accident while travelling on Bank's work; he had left behind a
widow who was a heart patient, four daughters of which two were married
and the other two were 20 and 16 years of age and still studying and one
son who was mentally retarded. The factors which weighed in granting
compassionate appointment to the daughter who was 20 years of age of the
said Sh. R.L. Joshi were that he had died in an accident while on official
duty, his son was mentally retarded and two unmarried daughters were still
studying and wife is a heart patient.
10. The petitioner cannot be placed at par with the aforesaid handicaps
which the family of Sh. R.L. Joshi suffers.
11. The petitioner has next, on the aspect of discrimination invited
attention to the order dated 8th October, 2004 at pages 746 to 749 of the
paper book, sanctioning compassionate appointment to the widow of Sh.
Ashok Mehta, Executive Senior Manager of the respondent Bank. The
petitioner on the basis thereof contends that the said family also was in
receipt of terminal benefits of `8.48 lacs and had savings of `1.48 lacs and
two residential houses. It is again contended that notwithstanding the
family of Sh. Ashok Mehta being more affluent, compassionate
appointment was granted.
12. However a perusal of the said order of the compassionate
appointment shows that the factors which prevailed in that case were that
Sh. Ashok Mehta died at young age leaving behind his young widow and
two children at the stage of college level education.
13. I am again of the opinion that the case of the family of Sh. Ashok
Mehta cannot be compared with the case of the family of the petitioner
where both children were of age where they are expected to be settled in
life, though it is contended that both the petitioner and his sister were
unemployed. The petitioner on enquiry states that he had completed his
graduation in the year 1999 i.e. 5 years prior to the demise of his father.
14. The petitioner has next contended that the respondent Bank has
practiced falsehood. Though vehement arguments are made in this regard
but upon being asked to establish from the file, the petitioner has invited
attention to page 641 of the paper book being a counter affidavit dated 31 st
October, 2007 of the respondent Bank in this petition. It is urged that
while in para III thereof it is stated as under:-
"III. That the deponent states that as per the provisions of
the Scheme circulated vide HRD Division Circular No.235
dated 7-1-2005, all the applications for compassionate
employment pending as on 29-10-2004 are to be dealt with in
accordance with new Scheme."
the petitioner on making enquiries under the RTI Act has been
supplied a list of sanctioned cases of employment on compassionate
grounds on or after 11th April, 2004 (at page 537 of the paper book) which
shows to the contrary. Attention is invited to Serial No.10 pertaining to
Sh. Suresh Dilare working as Cash Peon and compassionate appointment
to whose widow was allowed on 2nd November, 2004.
15. I am unable to decipher any falsehood. What has been stated in the
counter affidavit is that the Scheme was circulated on 7th January, 2005.
Even though the Scheme provided for the applications for compassionate
appointment pending on 29th October, 2004 to be dealt with in accordance
with the new Scheme but compassionate appointment to the widow of Sh.
Suresh Dilare had been allowed on 2nd November, 2004 i.e. before the
revised Scheme was circulated on 7th January, 2005. The petitioner at this
stage states that the appointment letter to the widow of Sh. Suresh Dilare
was issued only on 23rd February, 2005 and to the widow of Sh. Ashok
Mehta on 25th November, 2004. However the same also does not
constitute a falsehood.
16. The petitioner at this stage invites attention to the order dated 25 th
November, 2010 in the writ petition whereby the respondent Bank was
directed to keep the records available at the time of hearing. He states that
the matter should be adjourned to enable the records to be produced and
for the same to be perused by him.
17. No merit is found in the said contention. It appears that the
petitioner being a practicing advocate is attempting to keep these petitions
hanging on the head of the respondent Bank.
18. No merit is found in the writ petition; the same is dismissed.
19. W.P.(C) No.2529/2011 has been filed impugning the order dated
28th June, 2010 of the Central Information Commission (CIC) on the
complaints made by the petitioner of non-compliance of the earlier order
dated 11th December, 2008 of the CIC on an appeal preferred by the
petitioner and directing the PIOs to provide a list of the deceased
employees in lieu of whom the applications for compassionate
appointment were filed.
20. I may at this stage state that the petitioner while arguing the writ
petition had invited attention to such a list furnished to him on seeking
information under the RTI Act.
21. The CIC in the order dated 28th June, 2010 has recorded that the
complaint of the petitioner was in fact in the nature of seeking
compassionate appointment in the respondent Bank and for which relief
W.P.(C) No.6611/2007 was pending before this Court. It also records that
the petitioner was unnecessarily filing applications under the RTI Act not
only against the respondent Bank but also against the PIOs.
22. The petitioner has argued that the list submitted is false. He further
argues that the documents in support of the list were not provided.
However the order dated 11th December, 2008 (supra) of the CIC was only
for providing for list/statement and no supporting document. There is also
nothing to show any falsehood or any error capable of judicial review in
the order dated 28th June, 2010.
23. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No. 2529/2011 is also dismissed.
24. The petitioner at this stage invites attention to page 77 of the paper
book in W.P.(C) No. 2529/2011 and states that the information against
queries 5 and 6 that none of the persons whose applications were pending
on 29th October, 2004 had been provided employment on compassionate
grounds is false.
25. This aspect has been dealt with hereinabove. As aforesaid, the
application of the widow of Sh. Suresh Dilare was allowed prior to the new
Scheme which was circulated on 7th January, 2005.
26. The petitioner states that the position in W.P.(C) No.4149/2011 is
the same.
27. Accordingly, W.P.(C) No. 4149/2011 is also dismissed.
I refrain from imposing any costs on the petitioner.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
(JUDGE)
OCTOBER 12 , 2011
bs
