Jharkhand High Court
Canara Bank vs Dheeraj Lal Hansda on 17 March, 2025
Author: Deepak Roshan
Bench: Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No. 454 of 2024
1. Canara Bank, through Divisional Manager, HRM Section, Circle Office,
Ranchi, PO - GPO, PS - Hindpiri, Dist. - Ranchi, PIN - 834001.
2. Senior Manager, Canara Bank, Human Resources Management Section,
HRM Section, Circle Office, Ranchi, PO - GPO, PS - Hindpiri, Dist. -
Ranchi, PIN-834001.
3. Branch Manager, Canara Bank, Bokaro Steel City Branch, PO & PS -
Bokaro Steel City, Dist. - Bokaro.
........... Respondents/Appellants
Versus
1. Dheeraj Lal Hansda, aged about 29 years, Son of Jageshwar Hansda @
Jogeshwar Hansda, Resident of - Village - Bartor, P.O. - G.
Raghunathpur, P.S. - Tundi, District - Dhanbad, Jharkhand.
............... Petitioner/Respondent
2. State of Jharkhand
....... Respondent/Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN
---------
For the Appellants: Mr. Anoop Kumar Mehta, Advocate
Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate
For Resp. No.1: Mr. Vishal Kumar Rai, Advocate
For the State: Ms. Surabhi, A.C. to AAG-II
---------
06/Dated: 17.03.2025
M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J. (Oral)
1. Heard counsel for the appellants-Bank and the counsel for 1st
respondent.
2. Perused the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge passed
on 10.06.2024 in W.P.(S) No. 5012 of 2022.
3. The 1st respondent's father, who had been employed in the appellant
Bank had died on 6.10.2015. The 1st respondent had approached the
appellant-Bank for compassionate appointment in December, 2015 soon
thereafter.
4. The appellants-Bank rejected it on 03.10.2020 by an order which
merely mentioned that there were no indigent circumstances and that the 1st
respondent's case doesn't fall within the parameters of it's policy. No
particulars were mentioned as to on what basis it has come to the
conclusion that there were no indigent circumstances.
5. The learned Single Judge found fault with this order in the impugned
judgment on the ground that it is an unreasoned order and directed the
appellants not only to consider the case of the 1st respondent for
compassionate appointment but also to issue letter of appointment on
compassionate ground within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy
of the order.
6. Counsel for the appellants contends that to the extent the learned
Single Judge directed issuance of letter of appointment on compassionate
ground within eight weeks from the date of passing of the order, the learned
Single Judge had erred. He contended that since he had also directed the
appellants to consider the case of the 1st respondent for compassionate
appointment, he cannot give the direction to the appellants -Bank to give
the compassionate appointment.
7. He stated that during the course of such consideration of the case of
the 1st respondent for grant of compassionate appointment the entire
relevant material available with the appellants will be considered.
8. Counsel for the 1st respondent contends that to the extent the learned
Single Judge directed consideration of the case of the 1st respondent for
compassionate appointment, the appellants-Bank cannot have any
grievance because it had passed an unreasoned order to reject the 1st
respondent's claim for compassionate appointment, which is also vague.
9. We agree that it was not proper on the part of the learned Single
Judge to direct issuance of letter of appointment on compassionate grounds
to the 1st respondent while simultaneously directing the appellants to
consider the case of the 1st respondent for compassionate appointment.
10. On the basis of the material available with the appellants-Bank it has
to take a view on the matter and then pass an order on the said aspect by
giving reasons which contain particulars.
11. Therefore, to the extent the learned Single Judge directed issuance of
letter of appointment to the 1st respondent on compassionate ground the
judgment of the learned Single Judge is set aside and the rest of the
judgment of the learned Single Judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the appeal
is partly allowed.
12. The appellants-Bank shall consider the case of the 1st respondent
within four weeks for grant of compassionate appointment and then pass a
reasoned order with full particulars and communicate it to the 1st
respondent. The appellants-Bank shall not raise the question of delay
between the date of passing of the 1st respondent's father and the date of
consideration of the application pursuant to this judgment as a ground for
rejecting the 1st respondent's claim for compassionate appointment.
13. Pending Interlocutory Application, if any, stands disposed of.
(M. S. Ramachandra Rao, C.J.)
(Deepak Roshan, J.)
APK/VK
