Pankaj Kumar vs The State Bank Of India And Ors
2023 Latest Caselaw 5076 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                    Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11391 of 2015
     ======================================================

Pankaj Kumar son of Late Surya Narayan Vidyarthi Resident of 118 G/1K, 60 feet Road, Rajruppur, P.S. Dhunamganj, Allahabad.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State Bank of India

2. The General Manager (D & PB), State Bank of India, West Gandhi Maidan, Patna -1.

3. Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India West Gandhi Maidan, Local Head Office, P.S. Gandhi Maidan

4. Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, West Gandhi Maidan, Local Head Office, P.S. Gandhi

5. The Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Dalmianagar District - Rohtas.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Anil Jayaswal, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr.Satya Prakashtripathy, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 05-10-2023

The present writ petition has been filed

for quashing the orders dated 14.08.2001 and

14.11.2005 passed by the General Manager (D &

PB), State Bank of India, Patna, whereby and

whereunder the case of the petitioner for grant of

appointment on compassionate ground has been

rejected.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the

father of the petitioner died on 08.01.1999 while Patna High Court CWJC No.11391 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

working on the post of Teller at Dalmianagar

Branch of the respondent-State Bank of India

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Bank'). The

petitioner had then filed an application on

04.10.1999 for grant of compassionate

employment, however, the same was rejected vide

order dated 14.08.2001 on the ground that liquid

surplus amount of Rs. 7.81 lacs is available to the

family and the family pension is Rs. 5,268.00 per

month as also the total income of the family from

all sources including family pension, income from

interest and investment and 75 per cent of net

terminal benefits comes to about Rs. 9,661.00 per

month, hence the financial condition of the

petitioner cannot be termed as precarious, as also

in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs.

State of Haryana & Others, reported in (1994)

4 SCC 138.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner

has submitted that the petitioner has a big family

of the deceased to support inasmuch as he has to Patna High Court CWJC No.11391 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

look after not only his widow mother but three

unmarried sisters and one younger brother, thus

the respondent-Bank be directed to provide

compassionate employment to the petitioner. The

aforesaid decision was also confirmed by a letter

dated 04.11.2005, issued by the respondent no. 2.

4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the

respondent-Bank has submitted that the present

writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground of

delay and laches inasmuch as though the father of

the petitioner had died on 08.01.1999 and his case

for compassionate employment was rejected on

04.10.1999, he has approached this Hon'ble Court

after a huge delay of 16 years. It is also submitted

that upon examination of the case of the petitioner,

it was found that the financial condition of the

deceased family could not be termed as penurious,

hence the claim of the petitioner for compassionate

employment was declined relying on the judgment

rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra).

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the Patna High Court CWJC No.11391 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

parties and gone through the materials on record

and this Court finds that about 24 years have

already gone by since the death of the father of the

petitioner, hence at such a belated stage, the very

object of the compassionate employment scheme

would be violated, in case compassionate

employment is directed to be offered to the

petitioner, inasmuch as the object of the

compassionate employment scheme is to enable

the family to get over the financial crisis, which it

faces at the time of the death of the sole

breadwinner, thus, the case of the petitioner for

grant of compassionate employment merits no

consideration. It would be apt to refer to a

judgment, rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of

Haryana & Others, reported in (1994) 4 SCC

138.

6. Yet another aspect of the matter is that if

any application is entertained after a long delay,

not only existing vacancies may be filled up by

regular appointment, but other cases of similar Patna High Court CWJC No.11391 of 2015 dt.05-10-2023

nature may arise where grant of immediate relief

by providing employment to the dependent of the

deceased employees may crop up, hence, what is

material for consideration is the time when the

relief is to be granted to a family in distress and not

to reserve a job for one of the dependents.

7. Having regard to the facts and

circumstances of the case and for the reasons

mentioned herein above, I do not find any merit in

the present writ petition, hence, the same stands

dismissed.

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          11.10.2023
Transmission Date       N/A