Jharkhand High Court
Abhay Prasad vs Punjab National Bank Through Its ... on 11 August, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5825 of 2022
----
Abhay Prasad, S/o late Suresh Prasad, Resident of Mohalla-Premnagar Colony,
Near DAV Public School, Banji, P.O. P.S. Ramgarh, District-Ramgarh.
......Petitioner
Versus
1. Punjab National Bank through its Chairman cum Managing Director
having office at Plot No. 4, Sector-10, Dwarka, New Delhi.
2. Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, having office at Zonal Office, First
Floor, Plot No. 46, Sector-24, Opposite Block A office Campus, Atal Nagar,
Naya Raipur.
3. Sr. Manager ( Admn), United Bank of India ( Now Punjab National Bank),
4th floor, Saluja Tower, P.P. Compound, Main Road, P.O. G.P.O. P.S.
Chutia, Town and District-Ranchi. ....Respondents
----
Coram: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
--------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Manoj Tandon, Advocate
: Ms. Neha Bhardwaj, Advocate
For the State : Mr. P.A.S. Pati, Advocate
--------
03/11.8.2023 Heard the parties.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the
decision as contained in letter dated 10.9.2015 passed by the respondent no. 3
by which the claim for compassionate appointment of the petitioner was rejected
on the ground that there was no provision for compassionate appointment on
the date of death of the father of the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed
to declare that the petitioner is entitled for compassionate appointment in view
of the fact that on the date of consideration of rejection of the application for
compassionate appointment, the scheme for compassionate appointment had
already come into existence and therefore on such score the petitioner is entitled
to the grant of the said benefit.
3. Submission has been advanced by Mr. Manoj Tandon, learned counsel
for the petitioner, that the scheme for compassionate appointment had come into
being on 11.8.2014 and the father of the petitioner had passed away on
1.5.2013. He submits that the application was made for compassionate
appointment after the death of his father by the petitioner, which however was
rejected on 10.9.2015, by which time the Circular regarding grant of
compassionate appointment had already been notified and therefore it was
incumbent upon the bank authorities to have considered the claim for
compassionate appointment of the petitioner based on the Circular which was
existing on the date of such consideration. It has also been submitted that these
factors were never considered by the respondent authorities and they had simply
rejected the claim of the petitioner by resorting to a plea that there was no
existence of any scheme for compassionate appointment on the date of death
of the father of the petitioner.
4. Mr. Tandon in support of his contention has relied upon the case of N.C.
Santhosh Versus State of Karnataka & Others reported in (2020) 7 SCC 617.
5. Mr. P.A.S. Pati, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, has
submitted that the claim of the petitioner was rightly rejected and any subsequent
Circular including the benefits of compassionate appointment to the dependent
of a deceased employee cannot make the claim of the petitioner come within the
said Circular and the provisions for compassionate appointment which was
prevalent on the date of death of the deceased employee would be the guiding
factor and in this particular case there was no scheme in vogue when the father
of the petitioner had died.
6. The factual aspects of the case reveal that the father of the petitioner
namely Suresh Prasad was working as a Daftari cum Cash Peon in Kedla
Branch of United Bank of India (Now Punjab National Bank), Ramgarh and he
died in harness on 1.5.2013. The death of the father of the petitioner triggered
an application preferred by the petitioner in the year 2013 itself in which he has
prayed for being granted compassionate appointment being the dependent of
the deceased employee. However, the claim of the petitioner was rejected vide
letter dated 10.9.2015 issued by the respondent no. 3 on the ground that on the
date of death of the father of the petitioner there was no scheme prevailing with
respect to compassionate appointment and the said letter is impugned to the
present writ petition.
7. On a perusal of the impugned letter dated 10.9.2015 the consideration
which has been made to the application of the petitioner and its rejection was
based on the fact that there was no circular which was prevalent and which
would lead to grant of compassionate appointment to the petitioner. Admittedly,
the Circular which came into existence was dated 11.8.2014 as contained in
letter no. CIRHR & IR/2014-15/532/476 dated 11.8.2014. The said Circular
floated the scheme for compassionate appointment in Public Sector Banks and
the eligibility criteria was also noted therein. It is the case of the petitioner that
his prayer for compassionate appointment was considered and rejected vide
letter dated 10.9.2015 but prior to such consideration the scheme was already
in existence and therefore the case of the petitioner should have been
considered on the basis of the scheme which was prevailing on the date when
such application was taken up.
8. Mr. Tandon has referred to in support of his contention has referred to
the case of N.C. Santhosh Versus State of Karnataka & Others (Supra)
wherein in the concluding portion it has been held as follows:-
"19. Applying the law governing compassionate appointment
culled out from the abovecited judgments, our opinion on the
point at issue is that the norms, prevailing on the date of
consideration of the application, should be the basis for
consideration of claim for compassionate appointment. A
dependant of a government employee, in the absence of any
vested right accruing on the death of the government
employee, can only demand consideration of his/her
application. He is, however, disentitled to seek consideration
in accordance with the norms as applicable, on the day of
death of the government employee".
9. In the aforesaid judgement, the factual aspects reveal that several
persons who were granted compassionate appointment and who had applied for
the same were all minors and they had applied after almost 2-6 years from the
date of death of their parents. In the meantime, the rule providing for
compassionate appointment has been amended and the same included that
such application should be made within a period of one year from the date of
death of the parents. Infact, the fate of the applications which were submitted at
the initial stage by such applicants were considered and it was held as follows:-
"10.In all these cases, when the government employee died,
the appellants were minor and they had turned 18, well
beyond one year of death of the parent. As can be seen from
the details in the chart, the dependants attained majority
after a gap of 2-6 years from the respective date of death of
their parents and then they applied for appointment. By the
time, the dependant children turned 18, the amended
provisions became operational w.e.f. 1-4-1999. As such their
belated application for compassionate appointment should
have been rejected at the threshold as being not in
conformity with proviso to Rule 5. The appellants applied for
compassionate appointment (after attainment of majority),
well beyond the stipulated period of one year from the date
of death of the parent, and therefore, those applications
should not have been entertained being in contravention of
the Rules".
10. Though Mr. Tandon, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied
much on the observations that the norms prevailing on the date of consideration
of the application should be the basis for consideration of the claim for
compassionate appointment but the said judgement would not be applicable in
the facts and circumstances of the present case squarely on account of the fact
that on the date of death of the father of the petitioner which is 1.5.2013 there
was no scheme prevalent which would enable the petitioner to claim
compassionate appointment and the said scheme was floated after more than
one year on 11.8.2014 and therefore any application which was preferred by the
petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment which was just after the death
of his father was to have been considered on the scheme if any which was
prevalent on the date of death of the father of the petitioner.
11. Although Mr. Tandon has also submitted that the letter dated
10.9.2015 does not indicate application of mind on the part of the respondent no.
3 as the various factors which have been noted in this order and as submitted by
the learned counsel for the petitioner were never taken into consideration but I do
not find any error in the said letter dated 10.9.2015 as though the order is almost
a one liner but the fact remains that on the death of the father of the petitioner
there was no scheme prevailing and the petitioner cannot take advantage of any
subsequent scheme which had been floated by the bank.
12. In view of the aforesaid facts, therefore, this writ petition is disposed
of.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J)
Rakesh/-
