Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sachin Kumar Yadav vs Managing Director And Chief ... on 10 May, 2023
Author: Chief Justice
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT JABALPUR
BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH,
CHIEF JUSTICE
&
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VISHAL MISHRA
ON THE 10 th OF MAY, 2023
WRIT APPEAL No. 1598 of 2022
BETWEEN:-
SACHIN KUMAR YADAV, S/O LATE SHRI BHAGWAN
DAS YADAV, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
UNEMPLOYED, R/O H.NO.1892, BUDDHU KACHHI KA
BADA, MANEGAON, RANJHI, JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)
.....APPELLANT
(BY SHRI K.C. GHILDIYAL - SENIOR ADVOCATE WITH SHRI J.B. SINGH -
ADVOCATE)
AND
1. MANAGING DIRECTOR AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, 9TH FLOOR,
CHANDRAMUKHI, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI
(MAHARASHTRA)-400021
2. ZONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,
ZONAL OFFICE, 9, ARERA HILLS, JAIL ROAD,
BHOPAL (MADHYA PRADESH)-462001
3. CHIEF MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,
REGIONAL OFFICE, OPPOSITE SOUTH AVENUE
MALL, POLIPATHAR, JABALPUR (MADHYA
PRADESH)-482001
.....RESPONDENTS
(BY SHRI ARVIND PANDEY - ADVOCATE)
This appeal coming on for admission this day, the Court passed the
following:
ORDER
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 5/15/2023
12:50:03 PM
Assailing the order dated 30.08.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
dismissing the Writ Petition No.15498 of 2020, the writ petitioner, is in appeal.
2. The case of the writ petitioner is that his father Late Bhagwan Das Yadav
was working on the post of Daftari in the respondent Bank, who while in
service, passed away on 17.11.2016 leaving behind his wife, two sons and a
daughter. A total amount of Rs.18,77,903/- was paid to his family, which was
divided in two equal shares between the writ petitioner and his younger brother
being his nominees and an amount of Rs.14,954/- was paid as pension to the
widow of the deceased employee. It is the case of the writ petitioner that his
younger brother took away his half share of the amount and is maintaining his
own family in a separate establishment and has denied to support his mother or
his sister. From the amount which has been received and by taking a loan from
the relatives and friends the writ petitioner purchased a house, wherein, he is
residing along with his wife, child, mother and sister. A small amount of
Rs.14,954/- as pension has been received by his mother, which is not enough to
survive and run the family. Facing acute financial hardships, he has applied for
grant of compassionate appointment on 25.07.2018. The application was duly
scrutinized by the committee and looking to the fact that the family pension is
being received and they are maintaining the house and other financial constraints
the committee has rejected the claim of the writ petitioner holding that the
financial condition of the family of the deceased is not an indigent in nature and
in view of the Government/IBA guidelines which are being adopted by the
Bank, no case for grant of compassionate appointment is made out and has
rejected the same. Therefore, the writ petition was preferred. The learned writ
court has not considered the aforesaid aspect of the case that a specific
averment was made in the writ petition with respect to his brother living
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 5/15/2023
12:50:03 PM
separately from the family after taking his share and has denied to maintain the
family. Only a small amount of approximately Rs.15,000/- is being received as
family pension which is not enough to maintain his family along with mother and
sister. There is no specific consideration with respect to paragraph 5.6 of the
writ petition. Therefore, the writ appeal has been filed.
3. Per contra, counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently
opposed the contentions and supported the impugned order. It is submitted that
the main ground of consideration for grant of compassionate appointment is the
factum of dependency and penury. It is not in dispute that substantial amount is
being received regarding service claims of the deceased father. The writ
petitioner has also purchased the house as mentioned in the memorandum of the
petition. A family pension to the tune of Rs.14,954/- has been provided to them.
The compassionate appointment is not an alternative mode of recruitment. A
policy governing the scheme of compassionate appointment also provides for
lump sum ex-gracia amount but that is to be granted under certain conditions.
The committee constituted for considering the application for grant of
compassionate appointment has minutely scrutinized the financial condition of
the family and thereafter has opined that the financial condition of the family is
not such as to be termed as indigent in nature, therefore, the benefit of
compassionate amount could not have been extended to the writ petitioner.
Merely the fact that his brother has taken away his share and living separately,
cannot be a sole ground for consideration of the application for compassionate
appointment. Other factors i.e. the family status, dependency and the hardship,
being faced by the family due to sudden demise of the sole bread earner of the
family are required to be considered. The aforesaid aspect was rightly
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 5/15/2023
12:50:03 PM
considered by the writ court. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner has placed
reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Canara Bank and anr. Vs. M. Mahesh Kumar reported in (2015) 7 SCC 412 and
has argued that the sole ground on which the rejection is made is not available
to the respondents as they have not taken into consideration the specific stand
taken by the writ petitioner in paragraph 5.6 of the writ petition. He has prayed
for dismissal of the appeal.
4. Heard the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record.
5. It is not disputed that the father of the writ petitioner died in harness on
17.11.2016, who was working on the post of Daftari in the respondents'
department. The terminal claims amounting to Rs.18,77,903/- and the family
pension of Rs.14,954/- has been sanctioned and paid to the family members of
the deceased employee. The writ petitioner has purchased a house amounting to
approximately Rs.20 Lakhs. It is submitted that he has taken interest free loan
from the relatives and friends. He applied for grant of compassionate
appointment and his case was considered by the committee constituted in terms
of the policy of the respondent Bank. The committee has scrutinized the case of
the writ petitioner and has found that the financial condition of the family of the
deceased staff is not indigent in nature, in view of the Government/IBA
guidelines, therefore, has declined the application for grant of compassionate
appointment. It is argued that the specific ground taken by the writ petitioner
with respect to his brother regarding the fact that he has taken his share and is
living separately from the family and has refused to maintain his mother, has not
been touched either by the authorities or by the learned writ court. It is suffice
to say that for the purpose of consideration of applications for compassionate
appointment the factum of dependency and penury being the key requirements,
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 5/15/2023
12:50:03 PM
is to be considered. He being the legal heir of the deceased was eligible for
applying for compassionate appointment, but as far as the dependency and
financial constraints are concerned it was up to the committee to analyze the
same. The committee has considered the case of the writ petitioner and rejected
the same, finding the financial condition to be sound and not falling under the
category of indigent person. In the reply which has been filed by the
respondents specially in paragraphs 10 and 11 it was pointed out as under:-
"10. It is further submitted that according to Annexure-A at page 52 of
the petition, the net corpus of terminal benefits is Rs.17,46,706/- and
total investment is Rs.10,71,955/-. Thus the gross salary of the
deceased staff member is Rs.39,917/-, total monthly income of the
family is Rs.31,983/- and 60% of gross salary is Rs.23,950/-. The
estimated monthly income id est Rs.31,983/- is more than 60% of last
drawn salary. On the basis of expected monthly income of as
calculated by the Committee on page No.50 of the petition on the basis
of notional interest from net corpus, notional interest from investment
and by way of family pension, the Committee came to the conclusion
that the financial condition of the family is not indigent in nature
hence declines the proposal of Sachin Kumar Yadav for
compassionate appointment. Thus the recommendation of the
Committee was approved by the Competent Authority.
11. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has admitted in
this petition at page 4 and 6 that a total of Rs.18,77,903/- was paid to
the family in two equal shares between the petitioner and his younger
brother Sujeet Kumar Yadav, being nominees. The petitioner has been
paid Rs.9.4 lac of the total amount. It has been further admitted by the
petitioner that he has purchased a house for a total consideration of
Rs.19,50,000/- on 17.03.2017 in the common conscience of the family.
It is respectfully submitted that the family includes younger brother
Sujeet Kumar Yadav who is employed with the respondent Bank as
Sub-staff cum Safai Karmchari since 29.01.2013. The petitioner
himself has admitted in his application for compassionate ground at
page 17 and 55 of the petition that he is employed. The amount of
Rs.18,77,903/- plus Rs.10,71,955/- has been given to the family. The
nominee does not mean legal heir. The nominee means the person who
receives money of the deceased as a custodian. He can receive the
money but cannot use it. The total amount of Rs.29,49,858/- belongs to
the family of the deceased. The plea raised by the petitioner to the
effect that the amount of Rs.18,77,955/- has been equally distributed
between himself and his younger brother being nominees, his sister is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 5/15/2023
12:50:03 PM
to be married, he has purchased a house for a total consideration of
Rs.19,50,000/- by borrowing interest tree funds from the relatives and
friends, his younger brother Sujeet Kumar Yadav is living separately
and is not supporting the family that is why he is facing acute
financial problem, cannot be accepted. It is specifically denied that the
petitioner is facing acute financial problem. It is respectfully
submitted that the plea that the younger brother is living separately
and it not supporting the family has been deliberately raised just to
get employment on compassionate ground. It has been rightly found
by the Committee that the financial condition of the family is not
indigent in nature."
There is no justification which could be given by the writ petitioner to the
aforesaid.
6. It is a settled law that compassionate appointment is not an alternative
mode of recruitment rather it is a back door entry being granted in exceptional
circumstances just to overcome the financial crises and hardships being faced
by the family members of the deceased employee due to his sudden demise. It
is further pointed out that the mother of the writ petitioner had filed a writ
petition being Writ Petition No.3617 of 2017 and prayed for issuance of an
order for grant of compassionate appointment. The same was withdrawn on
14.07.2018 without there being any assurance given by the respondent Bank to
appoint her on compassionate basis. The claim of compassionate appointment
is relatable to the scheme framed by the employer and there is no right
whatsoever which accrues to the employee. The aforesaid aspect was
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SBI and another Vs.
Rajkumar reported in (2010) 11 SCC 661. The overall financial condition of the
family is required to be seen by the committee while considering the application
for grant of compassionate appointment. The aforesaid aspect was also
considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager
(D&PB) and others Vs. Kunti Tiwary and another reported in (2004) 7 SCC
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 5/15/2023
12:50:03 PM
579. The committee has rightly assessed the financial condition of the family
and finding it not falling under the definition of an indigent family, a decision
was taken not to extend the benefit of compassionate appointment to the writ
petitioner. The writ court considered all these aspects of the matter and has
rightly dismissed the writ petition. The courts under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India cannot sit as an appellate authority over and above the
decision taken by the expert committee who has assessed the financial
condition of the family and thereafter rejected the application. In absence of any
material which could be placed on record by the writ petitioner and the fact that
the financial constraints being one of the prime factor for consideration of the
application, no benefit can be extended to the writ petitioner. The writ court has
rightly assessed the same.
7. The writ appeal sans merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to
costs.
(RAVI MALIMATH) (VISHAL MISHRA)
CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE
taj
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TAJAMMUL
HUSSAIN KHAN
Signing time: 5/15/2023
12:50:03 PM
