Smt.Chitralekha Rajput vs G.M., State Bank Of India & Ors.
2022 Latest Caselaw 1541 MP

                                                          W.P.(S) No.2198 of 2004

                                -:- 1 -:-

  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
                    JABALPUR

Case No.                        Writ Petition (S) No.2198/2004
Parties Name                            Smt. Chitralekha Rajput
                                                  vs.
                                  General Manager, State Bank of India
                                              and others.
Date of order/judgment                   03.02.2022
Bench Constituted               Single Bench : Justice Purushaindra
                                Kumar Kaurav
Order/judgment passed by        Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Whether approved for            Yes.
reporting
Name of counsel for parties     For Petitioner: None
                                For Respondent: Shri Ashish Shroti,
                                Adv.
Law laid down                   1.       The criteria of penury for grant of
                                compassionate appointment cannot be diluted to
                                one of "not very well-to-do".
                                2.       The hardship of the dependent of the
                                deceased alone does not entitle one to
                                compassionate appointment dehors the scheme or
                                the statutory provisions as the case may be.
                                3.      Compassionate appointment has to be
                                considered strictly in accordance with the policy
                                and if the policy provides the income of the
                                family of the deceased to be taken into
                                consideration, then there is no reason to ignore the
                                said policy and grant compassionate appointment.

Significant paragraph           6 to 9
numbers

                               ORDER

( 03/02/2022) The case of the petitioner is that her husband Late Devendra Singh

Rajput was working as Assistant at Damoh Main Branch of State Bank

of India. The husband of the petitioner died in harness on 11.2.2002. The

petitioner made an application on 17.4.2002 for compassionate W.P.(S) No.2198 of 2004

-:- 2 -:-

appointment in accordance with the policy of the respondent-Bank.

However, the same was rejected vide Annx.P/1, P/2 & P/3. According to

petitioner, although she has received certain terminal dues amounting to

Rs.10,43,802/-, however, taking into account the liabilities on the

petitioner, the amount is not sufficient and, therefore, directions were

sought for the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate basis.

2. The respondents in their reply have stated that as Clause-10 of the

Compassionate Appointment Scheme (Annx.R/1), in case of the death of

an employee in harness leaving their family in penury conditions, certain

factors are considered before grant of compassionate appointment. The

overall assessment of the case of the petitioner reflected that the monthly

estimated income would be available to the family of the deceased is

Rs.10,022/- per month against the net take home pay of the employee at

the time of death which was Rs.7,815/- after making all the deductions

and, therefore, taking into consideration the financial position, the

deceased employee's family was not penurious as per existing

instructions.

3. The petitioner filed rejoinder to demonstrate that he had to pay

sum of Rs.2,20,000/- to private persons from whom the private loan was

taken by her late husband. The petitioner has also mentioned that the

compassionate appointments were offered to the dependents of certain W.P.(S) No.2198 of 2004

-:- 3 -:-

officers/employees and therefore, there was a discrimination in the

matter of grant of compassionate appointment.

4. The respondent-Bank by way of additional return, has controverted

the submissions made by the petitioner and it has been stated that the

compassionate appointment has been given strictly in accordance with

the policy and there cannot be any straight jacket formula. Each case

has to be decided on the basis of its own merit.

5. I have perused the record and considered the submissions.

6. The Supreme Court had an occasion to consider the policy of the

respondent-Bank in the matter of General Manager (D& PB) and

others Vs. Kunti Tiwary and another1. In that case, the widow of

employee was seeking compassionate appointment which was rejected

taking into consideration the assets and liabilities of her late husband and

it was found that in view of the financial condition of the family, the

situation could not be termed as penurious. The Writ Court dismissed

the petition. However, the Division Bench overturned the decision of

the Single Judge and allowed the appeal consequently directing the

respondent-Bank to grant the compassionate appointment in accordance

with the policy of the respondent-Bank. Therefore, the respondent-Bank

was in appeal before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court in the said

decision has held that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in

1 (2004) 7 SCC 271 W.P.(S) No.2198 of 2004

-:- 4 -:-

diluting the criteria of penury to one of "not very well-to-do". Under

those circumstances, the order passed by the learned Single Judge was

affirmed and the order passed by the Division Bench was set aside. In

another judgment, in the case of Punjab National Bank and others Vs.

Ashwini Kumar Taneja2 while taking into consideration the principle

laid down in the case of Kanti Tiwary (supra), the Supreme Court has

held that the retiral benefits can be taken into consideration while

dealing with the prayer for compassionate appointment and the contrary

view taken by the High Court was set aside. The Supreme Court in the

matter of State Bank of India and another Vs. Somvir Singh 3 has held

that the hardship of the dependent does not entitle one to compassionate

appointment dehors the scheme or the statutory provisions as the case

may be. The income of the family from all sources are required to be

taken into consideration.

8. So far as the judgments relied upon by the petitioner in her

rejoinder are concerned, it is seen from the decision of the Supreme

Court in the matter of State Bank of India and another Vs. Sanjeev

Kumar and others4 dated 21.10.2005, that the Supreme Court

specifically directed the concerned Bank to reconsider the case of the

dependent of the deceased in light of the decision of the Supreme Court

which was rendered in the case of Kunti Tiwary (supra).

2    (2004) 7 SCC 265
3    (2007) 4 SCC 778

                                                            W.P.(S) No.2198 of 2004

                                      -:- 5 -:-

9. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts and legal position, I

am of the view that the petitioner is not entitled for any relief at this

stage when after the death of her husband about 20 years have passed

and she was already offered the terminal benefits. Since the case of the

petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been considered

in view of the applicable policy after applying the relevant

consideration, therefore, the High Court should not substitute its own

view that too after lapse of about 20 years.

With the aforesaid, I do not find any substance in the writ petition.

The same is, hereby, dismissed.

[PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV] JUDGE

A.Praj.

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.02.04 10:33:30 +05'30'