Patna High Court
Ajay Kumar Mahto vs The United Commercial Bank Ltd. (Uco ... on 10 February, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 9509 of 2023
======================================================
Ajay Kumar Mahto S/o Ram Prasad Mahto R/o-Balha, P.O.-Rajapatti, P.S.
Baikunthpur, Distt.-Gopalganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The United Commercial Bank Ltd. (UCO Bank) through Chairman Cum
Managing Director, 6th Floor, 10B T.M. Sarani, Kolkata, 700001, West
Bengal.
2. The Executive Director, the United Commercial Bank Ltd. (UCO Bank), 6th
Floor, 10B T.M. Sarani, Kolkata, 700001, West Bengal.
3. The General Manager, Personnel Services Department, the United
Commercial Bank Ltd. (UCO Bank), Head Office-3 and 4 D.D. Block
Sector 1 Salt Lake, Kolkata, West Bengal.
4. The Assistant General Manager, Personnel Services Department, the United
Commercial Bank Ltd. (UCO Bank), Head Office-3 and 4 D.D. Block
Sector 1 Salt Lake, Kolkata, West Bengal.
5. The Zonal Head, the United Commercial Bank Ltd. (UCO Bank), Zonal
Office, Patna.
6. The Regional Manager, the United Commercial Bank Ltd. (UCO Bank),
Regional Office, Patna.
7. The Senior Manager, the United Commercial Bank Ltd. (UCO Bank),
Hajipur, Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Ranjan Kr Srivastava, Rajanigandha Akhouri,
Advocates
For the Respondent/s : M/s Shivendra Kr Roy, Sheela Sharma, Advocates
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 10-02-2025
The petitioner has preferred this petition seeking the
following reliefs:
A. For issuance of writ/writs,
order/orders in the nature of Certiorari for
quashing the Letter vide Ref
HJP/COMP_APPOINT/26275/2021-22/24
Patna High Court CWJC No.9509 of 2023 dt.10-02-2025
2/5
dated 22.12.2021 (Annexure 6) issued by
Respondent No 7 i e Senior Manager, UCO
Bank, Hajipur, Vaishali whereby and
whereunder application of the Petitioner for
compassionate appointment has been declined
without considering the Scheme for
Compassionate appointment in bank vide clause
2.2 and Clause 5 in circular No
CHO/PMG/23/2014-2015 (Annexure 8).
B. For issuance of writ/writs,
order/orders in the nature of Mandamus for
commanding/directing the Respondents to
appoint the Petitioner on he basis of
compassionate ground. As the father of the
petitioner was working as Head Cashier, UCO
Bank, Hajipur Branch, Distt - Vaishali died on
25.04.2019
during service period. As
application for compassionate appointment of
the Petitioner was recommended by the Senior
Manager, UCO Bank on 11.11.2020 (Annexure
4) but it has not been considered.
C. To any other relief/reliefs as your
Lordships may deem fit and proper in the facts
and circumstances of the case."
2 Brief facts of the case are that the father of the
petitioner, namely, Ram Prasad Mahto was working as Head
Cashier in the UCO Bank, Hajipur Branch, Vaishali and had died
during his service period on 25.04.2019. The petitioner is the
eldest son of the deceased employee. Mother of the petitioner,
namely, Tetari Devi, with the consent of the petitioner, made an
application on 09.10.020 before the respondent-Bank for
compassionate appointment of her son, the petitioner herein which
Patna High Court CWJC No.9509 of 2023 dt.10-02-2025
was recommended and forwarded by Respondent No 7 to
Respondent No 5 vide its letter dated 11.11.2020 (Annexure 4
series). The application of the petitioner was rejected and
communicated to him through communication dated 22.12.2021
(Annexure 6) and it was informed that since the petitioner is a
married person, therefore, he is not entitled to get any appointment
on compassionate ground. Hence, this petition has been preferred
by the petitioner.
3 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the application of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected by
the respondents. According to the counsel, Clause 2 of the
Scheme for Compassionate Appointment (Annexure 8) dated
29.09.2014 clearly states that the dependent family members
means "wholly dependent son". The married son of the deceased
employee is not excluded from the definition of the family
members of the said scheme. Undisputedly, the petitioner is the
dependent family member of the deceased, therefore, his
candidature for grant of compassionate appointment ought to have
been considered and allowed.
4 In its counter affidavit, the respondent-Bank has
accepted the fact that the petitioner is the eldest son of the
deceased employee and it is also admitted that his application was
Patna High Court CWJC No.9509 of 2023 dt.10-02-2025
duly forwarded by the zonal office of the Bank along with the
affidavit of the mother and brother of the petitioner. The claim of
the petitioner has been rejected vide communication dated
22.12.2021 (Annexure 6) only on the basis that he is a married son
of the deceased. The counter affidavit further shows that as of
now, the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment in Public Sector
Banks has been amended and, as contained in letter dated
20.07.2023 (Annexure R7-4) annexed with the counter affidavit,
the married son is included in the definition of dependent family
member of the deceased in the Scheme.
5 Learned counsel for the respondent-Bank submits that
since the modification in guideline will be applicable on or after
19.09.2022, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to get any relief
on the basis of above modification as his claim has already been
rejected prior to 19.09.2022.
6 Perusal of the Scheme for Compassionate
Appointment dated 29.09.2014 (Annexure 8) shows that in Clause
2 of the said Circular, there is no disqualification in the
eligibility/criteria of married son for compassionate appointment.
The learned counsel for the respondent-Bank is unable to point out
any such provision in the Scheme dated 29.09.2014 (Annexure 8).
Patna High Court CWJC No.9509 of 2023 dt.10-02-2025
7 Undisputedly, the petitioner is the eldest son of the
deceased employee and was dependent upon the deceased
employee and according to the Scheme dated 29.09.2014
(Annexure 8) which has also been modified subsequently vide
Annexure R7-4 dated 20.07.2023, he is entitled to get appointment
on compassionate ground.
8 Therefore, the impugned order dated 22.12.2021
(Annexure 6) whereby the application of the petitioner has been
rejected is set aside.
9 The respondent-Bank is directed to reconsider the
claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and pass a fresh
reasoned order taking into consideration the subsequent
modification in the Scheme of 2014 which will be done positively
on or before 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of the order
of this Court.
10 Accordingly, the petition is allowed.
(Arvind Singh Chandel, J)
M.E.H./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 11.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
