Punjab-Haryana High Court
Jogindro vs Oriental Bank Of Commerce And Anr on 25 April, 2024
Author: G.S. Sandhawalia
Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056781-DB
Neutral Citation No. 2024:PHHC:056781 -DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
(114) LPA-1003-2024 (O&M)
Decided on : 25.04.2024
Smt.Jogindro ......Appellant(s)
Versus
Oriental Bank of Commerce & another ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA,
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MS.JUSTICE LAPITA BANERJI
Present: Mr.Manoj Sharma, Advocate for the appellant (s).
G.S. Sandhawalia, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
CM-2423-LPA-2024
1. Application for condoning the delay of 12 days in filing the appeal
is allowed in view of the averments made in the application duly supported by
affidavit of the appellant. Delay of 12 days in filing the appeal is hereby
condoned.
2. CM stands disposed of.
LPA-1003-2024
3. Consideration in the present appeal is to the judgment dated
01.02.2024 passed in CWP-8306-2018 whereby the Learned Single Judge chose
not to grant the benefit of compassionate appointment. However, the benefit
granted was of the amount of Rs.6 lakhs along with interest @ 6% per annum
from 01.04.2016 keeping in view the fact that there was a policy in place.
4. The argument raised by counsel for the appellant is that the benefit
of employment should have been granted instead of the amount granted along
with interest.
1 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056781-DB
(114) LPA-1003-2024 (O&M) -2-
5. We have gone through the paperbook. Apparently, the husband of
the appellant expired on 25.12.2014 who was working as Head Peon with the
respondent-Bank. The request was made on 20.04.2015 for compassionate
appointment which was belatedly considered and rejected on 18.03.2016 on the
ground that the eligibility was only for Rs.6 lakhs ex gratia amount and the
request could not be conceded as per the provisions of the scheme. The
documentation pertaining to the amount the legal heirs have been released was
asked for and the same was subject matter of challenge before the Learned
Single Judge wherein the relief sought was for compassionate appointment
being a dependent of the deceased.
4. In the written statement, the plea taken was that the deceased was
appointed on 08.10.1996 who expired on 25.12.2014 and did not complete 20
years of service. The son of the appellant, Shiv Kumar being married was not
dependent upon the said deceased and therefore, did not fall within the purview
of the scheme for compassionate appointment being a married son and not part
of the family as per the bi-partite settlement.
5. We have also perused Annexure P-7 which was filed along with the
writ petition and in which there is a reference to the dependent of family
member and Clause 2.2 provided for a wholly dependent son. Thus, it is
apparent that the son of the deceased was married and in such circumstances,
only the case of ex gratia was considered which has been accepted by the
Learned Single Judge and also the interest was directed to be paid on account of
the delay. It has also been mentioned that the Chief Manager of the Bank never
recommended the case of the appellant for compassionate appointment.
2 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056781-DB
(114) LPA-1003-2024 (O&M) -3-
6. Counsel has vehemently submitted that his earlier counsel has
wrongly given his consent that he would be satisfied if the said amount is paid
along with interest. It is submitted that no instructions were given regarding
giving up of the claim of compassionate appointment.
7. Be that at it may, we are of the considered opinion that appointment
on compassionate basis is an exception to the general rules and therefore, it has
to be guided by the policy. Here death had taken place way-back in the year
2014. It is not disputed that the son was born in 1992 and it has been averred
that he is married. In such circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that
the view taken by the Learned Single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity.
The purpose of compassionate appointment is only to ensure that immediate
succor is provided to the family to tide over the crisis. Reference can be made
to the judgments passed by the Apex Court in V.S.Murthi Vs. State of Andhra
Pradesh, 2008 (4) RSJ 343 and State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Parkash
Chand (2019) 4 SCC 285. In Parkash Chand (supra), it has been held as under:
"11. In the exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the
Constitution, it was not open to the High Court to re-write the terms of
the policy. It is well-settled that compassionate appointment is not a
matter of right, but must be governed by the terms on which the State
lays down the policy of offering employment assistance to a member of
the family of a deceased government employee. [Umesh Kumar Nagpal
v. State of Haryana, 1994(3) S.C.T. 174 : (1994) 4 SCC 138, General
Manager (D&PB) v. Kunti Tiwary, (2004) 7 SCC 271, Punjab National
Bank v. Ashwani Kumar Teneja, 2004(3) S.C.T. 835 : (2004) 7 SCC
265, State Bank of India v. Somvir Singh, 2007(2) S.C.T. 243 : (2007) 4
SCC 778, Mumtaz Yunus Mulani v. State of Maharashtra, 2008(2)
S.C.T. 669 : (2008) 11 SCC 384, Union of India v. Shashank Goswami,
(2012) 11 SCC 307, State Bank of India v. Surya Narain Tripathi,
2014(2) S.C.T. 161 : (2014) 15 SCC 739 and Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh
Kumar, 2015(3) S.C.T. 186 : (2015) 7 SCC 412]"
3 of 4
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:056781-DB
(114) LPA-1003-2024 (O&M) -4-
8. Considerable period of almost a decade has gone by since the death
took place and the length of service was also duly considered. Once the
respondent-Bank has taken a conscious decision not to grant compassionate
appointment, it is not for this Court to substitute the same, keeping in view the
settled law.
9. Resultantly, in view of the above discussion, finding no merit in the
present appeal, the same is hereby dismissed. All pending application(s) also
stand disposed of.
(G.S. SANDHAWALIA)
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
(LAPITA BANERJI)
25.04.2024 JUDGE
Sailesh
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes
Whether Reportable : No
4 of 4
