Neelima Dixit vs State Bank Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 1574 MP

                                                        W.P. NO.13638 OF 2005

                               -:- 1 -:-

  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH, PRINCIPAL SEAT AT
                    JABALPUR

Case No.                       Writ Petition No.13638 of 2005
Parties Name                                 Neelim Dixit
                                                  vs.
                                    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
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 her husband Late Vinay Dixit was

working as Senior Assistant in the State Bank of India. The husband of

the petitioner died in harness on 14.12.2002. The petitioner made an

application on 29.3.2003 (Annx.P/1) for compassionate appointment in

accordance with the policy of the respondent-Bank, which has been

rejected by the respondent-Bank vide communication dated 19.7.2004

(Annx.P/2). According to petitioner, although she has received certain

terminal dues amounting to Rs.8,97,471/-, however, taking into account

the liabilities on the petitioner, the amount is not sufficient and, W.P. NO.13638 OF 2005

-:- 2 -:-

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/2), 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.5,115/- whereas the net take home salary, after all

deductions, of deceased employee at the time of his death was

Rs.12,273/- 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 her husband

about 17 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 W.P. NO.13638 OF 2005

-:- 3 -:-

applying the relevant consideration, therefore, the High Court should not

substitute its own view that too after lapse of about 17 years.

[PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV] JUDGE A. Praj.

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.02.04 10:35:52 +05'30'