Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sumit Kumar Hirkane vs The G.M.,State Bank Of India & Ors. on 3 February, 2022
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
W.P. .(S) No.5019/2004
-:- 1 -:-
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
JABALPUR
Case No. Writ Petition (S) No.5019 of 2004(S)
Parties Name Sumit Kumar Hirkane
vs.
The General Manager
State Bank of India and another.
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 No.
reporting
Name of counsel for parties For Petitioner: None
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Shroti,
Adv.
Law laid down
Significant paragraph
numbers
ORDER
(3/2/2022)
The case of the petitioner is that his father Late Sandeep Kumar
Hirkane was working as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the State Bank of India.
The father of the petitioner died in harness on 23.9.1993. The petitioner
made an application on 16.9.1994, when he was not eligible for
compassionate appointment. After attaining the age of majority, the
petitioner again made an application on 18.9.2003 (Annx.P/2) for
compassionate appointment in accordance with the policy of the
respondent-Bank, which was rejected by the respondent No.3 vide order
dated 23.9.2003 (Annx.P/3). According to petitioner, although he has
W.P. .(S) No.5019/2004
-:- 2 -:-
received certain terminal dues amounting to Rs.1,40,698/-, 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 to be considered before grant of compassionate appointment.
3. The application of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that
the same was made after nine years of his father's death and he was
minor at that time. It is found that family was found to have monthly
income of Rs.1,836/-. It was found that petitioner's father expired in the
year 1993 whereas the application in question was submitted by the
petitioner in the year 2003. Therefore, taking into consideration the
financial position, the deceased employee's family was not penurious as
per existing instructions.
2. The respondents in their reply have stated that as Clause-10 of the
Compassionate Appointment Scheme (Annx.R/8), in case of the death of
an employee in harness leaving their family in penury conditions, certain
factors are to be considered before grant of compassionate appointment.
3. It is seen that the family of the deceaed was found to have monthly
income of Rs.1,836/- whereas the net take home salary, after all
W.P. .(S) No.5019/2004
-:- 3 -:-
deductions, of deceased employee at the time of his death was Rs.2,843/-
after making all the deductions and, therefore, taking into consideration
the financial position, the deceased employee's family was not penurious
as per applicable instructions.
4. Under almost similar circumstances, this Court passed order in
Writ Petition(S) No.2198 of 2004 ( Smt. Chitralekha Rajput Vs.
General Manager, State Bank of India and others), dismissed the said
Writ Petition. Therefore, I am of the view that the petitioner is also not
entitled for any relief at this stage when after the death of his father
about 18 years have passed and he 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 18 years.
[PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV]
JUDGE
A.Praj.
Digitally signed by ASHWANI
PRAJAPATI
Date: 2022.02.04 10:35:08 +05'30'
