Narendra Kumar vs State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 12535 Raj

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16230/2018

Narendra Kumar S/o Shri Mahendra Kumar, Aged About 28 Years, Near Shyam Mandir, Ward No. 20 Tehsil Nohar, Distt. Hanumangarh

----Petitioner Versus

1. State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur (Now SBI), Through Managing Director, Head Office Sawai Man Singh Highway, Jaipur

2. Regional Manager II, State Bank Of Bikaner And Jaipur Zonal Office, Bikaner Zone, Bikaner

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gourav Thanvi for Mr. Rajendra Kataria For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Vyas

JUSTICE DINESH MEHTA

Order

11/08/2021

1. By way of the present writ petition, petitioner has sought

direction to the respondents to give him compassionate

appointment.

2. Petitioner's father late Sh. Mahendra Kumar Sharma had

passed away on 28.01.2009, whereafter immediately on

19.02.2009, the application seeking compassionate appointment

to the petitioner was moved by his mother - Parmeshwari Devi.

3. The petitioner has raised a grievance that on the one hand

the respondents took four years' time in making payment of Ex-

Gratia amount after the death of his father, and on the other hand

refused to accord compassionate appointment to the petitioner.

(2 of 4) [CW-16230/2018]

4. Mr. Thanvi, learned counsel for the petitioner argued that

though on the date of death of petitioner's father, i.e., on

28.01.2009, there was no scheme for compassionate

appointment, but later on, a new circular/scheme dated

13.06.2011 has been floated by the respondent-Bank, according

to which compassionate appointment can be granted to an

employee in exceptional cases.

5. He argued that since scheme/circular dated 13.06.2011 has

been given retrospective effect from 20.12.2005 and petitioner's

father passed away on 28.01.2009, the petitioner is entitled for

compassionate appointment.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents have

not even timely processed petitioner's application for Ex-Gratia

amount pursuant to the prevailing circular/scheme of the Bank

and they took four years time to make the requisite payment.

Thus, the condition to meet the financial crisis burden on account

of sudden death of employee has not been appropriately dealt

with by the respondent-Bank.

7. Mr. Deepak Vyas, learned counsel appearing for the

respondent-Bank while denying the factum of receiving

application for compassionate appointment dated 19.02.2009

submitted that the petitioner has come up with entirely new plea

of compassionate appointment, whereas even no application to

this effect was filed.

8. In order to support the contention that the application dated

19.02.2009 is a manufactured document, learned counsel invited

Court's attention towards series of representations which were

filed by the petitioner/his mother from the year 2009 to 2013,

(3 of 4) [CW-16230/2018]

and pointed out that they refer to nothing, except Ex-Gratia

amount.

9. Mr. Deepak Vyas also raised the preliminary objection that

the petition has been filed belatedly.

10. Mr. Vyas thus argued that upto receipt of the amount of Ex-

Gratia amount, petitioner never claimed for compassionate

appointment. He argued that at the time of death of petitioner's

father, the prevailing circular/scheme did not even provide for

compassionate appointment. Provision for compassionate

appointment have been introduced only after issuance of circular

dated 13.06.2011, thus the case of compassionate appointment

has falsely been set up.

11. Learned counsel invited Court's attention towards the

provisions of circular dated 13.06.2011 and highlighted that the

compassionate appointment is not given as a matter of right; it is

given in exceptional cases as indicated in the circular. It was

argued that since petitioner's case does not fall in the exceptional

cases, compassionate appointment cannot be granted to him.

12. In support of his contention, learned counsel relied upon the

decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court dated 14.11.2018,

rendered in case of Shri Ram Verma Vs. State Bank of Bikaner &

Jaipur (S.B.. Civil Writ Petition No.2085/2018) so also a decision

dated 13.01.2021 passed by this Court in case of Laxman Singh

Vs. State Bank of India (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.9937/2019).

13. Heard.

14. After going through the record, this Court finds that till 2013,

the petitioner and his mother had been requesting the

respondents to make payment of Ex-Gratia amount and there was

no whisper about grant of compassionate appointment.

(4 of 4) [CW-16230/2018]

15. It is only after receiving the Ex-Gratia amount, that the

petitioner has become wiser and approached this Court seeking

directions to the respondents to grant compassionate

appointment.

16. This Court has its own doubt about the application dated

19.02.2009 purportedly filed by the petitioner's mother.

17. Be that as it may. Petitioner's case is not even covered by

exceptional cases laid down in the circular dated 13.06.2011. The

relevant exceptions reads thus :-

"i. Employee dying while performing his official duty, as result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity, ii. Employee dying within five years of his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years, whichever is later, leaving a dependent spouse and/or minor children."

18. In view of the clear stipulation in circular dated 13.06.2011

and in light of the judgment rendered in case of Shri Ram Verma

(supra), this Court does not find any substance and force in the

present writ petition, for which, it is hereby dismissed.

(DINESH MEHTA),J 2-Amar/-

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)