Rajasthan High Court
Narsi Meena vs S B I And Ors on 6 January, 2023
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3979/2015
Narsi Meena Son Of Late Shri Mangal Ram Meena, Hardi, Dhani
Lahrion Ki, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Bank Of India, 3Rd Floor, G Block, Synergy Building,
Bandra Kurla Complex- Bandra, East Mumbai Maharastra,
Through Its Managing Director
2. State Bank Of India, Hatwara Road, Jaipur Through Its
Branch Manager
3. State Bank Of India, Regional Office, Zone-I, 5, Nehru
Place, Tonk Road, Jaipur
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr.BR Rana
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Anuj Goyal with
Mr.Aman Lodha, for Mr.Yash Sharma
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
06/01/2023
The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner for
seeking a direction to appoint him on the post of Class-IV/General
Attendant with the respondent Bank on the compassionate ground
on account of death of his father while serving in the respondent
Bank.
The facts, as pleaded in the writ petition in nut shell, are that
the petitioner's father was working with the respondent Bank as
Gardener initially and later on, he was taken as General Attendant
in the year 2006.
(2 of 7) [CW-3979/2015]
The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that his father,
unfortunately, died on 24th January, 2014. The petitioner, on 22 nd
February, 2014 filed an application for his appointment on
compassionate ground on account of death of his father.
The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that the
Branch Manager of the respondent Bank had forwarded application
of the petitioner to the office of Assistant General Manager, State
Bank of India, Region-I, Administrative Office-I, Jaipur.
The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that no
response was received by the petitioner and as such, he again
submitted an application for compassionate appointment on 16 th
August, 2014 and his application was again forwarded to the Zonal
Office.
The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that he was
having all the requisite qualification to be appointed on the post of
Class-IV and accordingly, he had annexed all the documents with
his application for considering his case for compassionate
appointment.
The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that by the
impugned order dated 22nd October, 2014, the respondents have
declined to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground and
has only proposed to grant one time ex-gratia amount.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the
decision of the respondents, has made following submissions :
(1) the impugned order dated 22 nd October, 2014 has wrongly
been passed by the respondents depriving the petitioner for
compassionate appointment by invoking irrelevant clauses of
granting compassionate appointment.
(3 of 7) [CW-3979/2015]
(2) the grant of ex-gratia payment is no solace to the petitioner,
as the petitioner was entitled to be considered for compassionate
appointment.
(3) the respondent Bank had introduced the scheme of
compassionate appointment and accordingly, the same was made
effective w.e.f. 05th August, 2014 and at the time of rejection of
claim of the petitioner, the said scheme had come in force.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Apex
Court in the case of Canara Bank & Anr. Vs. M.Mahesh Kumar
(Civil Appeal No.260/2008), decided on 15th May, 2015, has
granted relief in the similar circumstances by considering the
scope of compassionate appointment and the same view has been
reiterated by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Vinod Kumar Sharma Vs. State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur
& Anr. (SB Civil Writ Petition No.9036/2013), decided vide
order dated 02nd March, 2017.
Learned counsel submitted that deceased father of the
petitioner has left behind large number of family members and the
grant of ex-gratia payment is no substitute for looking after the
entire family by giving employment to one of the dependents of
deceased and as such, the very purpose of granting
compassionate appointment is frustrated by the respondents in
arbitrary manner.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has disputed
the claim of the petitioner for grant of compassionate
appointment.
The reply, filed by the respondents, specifically mentions
about grant of ex-gratia payment of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rs.Four lac
(4 of 7) [CW-3979/2015]
only) to family members of the deceased, as per the scheme,
which was applicable at the relevant time.
Learned counsel for the respondents, while referring to the
reply, filed by them, also makes an assertion that since father of
the petitioner died on 24 th January, 2014 and as such, his case
was not required to be considered under the scheme for
appointment on compassionate ground and at the relevant time,
ex-gratia payment was the only mode, whereby the family
members could be compensated and the case was considered as
per the prevalent Circulars dated 17th April, 2012 and 25th
February, 2014 (Annexure R/2 & Annexure R/3).
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the
petitioner has wrongly attracted applicability of the scheme of
compassionate appointment by making it retrospective and as
such, the same may not be accepted by this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that
issuance of the order dated 22nd October, 2014 was on the basis of
relevant guidelines, which were in vogue at the relevant time and
case of the petitioner's father did not fall in any of two
contingencies, which had warranted grant of compassionate
appointment.
Learned counsel for the respondents further submitted that
only on account of death of an employee in robbery/dacoity or
terrorism, the issue of compassionate appointment could be
considered and further, if the employee died within five years of
his first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years, then
the compassionate appointment could be granted.
Learned counsel further submitted that the scheme, which is
introduced from time to time, have been made applicable in
(5 of 7) [CW-3979/2015]
respect of appointment on compassionate ground as well as ex-
gratia payment and if any subsequent event takes place for
changing the policy, the same has to be made applicable to the
employee concerned and in the present case, since father of the
petitioner expired on 24th January, 2014 and at the relevant time,
there was no provision of granting compassionate appointment
only on account of death of an employee.
I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel
for the parties and perused the record of the case.
This Court finds that the order dated 22nd October, 2014 has
mentioned applicability of the scheme on death of deceased-
employee for the purpose of compassionate appointment and case
of the petitioner did not fall in any of the contingencies, which
were provided at the relevant time for grant of compassionate
appointment.
This Court further finds that death of father of the petitioner
had taken place on 24th January, 2014 and the scheme of
appointment on compassionate ground was introduced in August,
2014.
This Court finds that if the scheme has been introduced in
05th August, 2014, the said scheme cannot be made retrospective
by the Court.
This Court finds substance in the submission of learned
counsel for the respondents that at the relevant time, if case of
the petitioner was to be considered only for grant of ex-gratia
payment, the benefit of compassionate appointment could not
have been extended to the petitioner, as at the relevant time, no
scheme was there.
(6 of 7) [CW-3979/2015]
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
impugned order 22nd October, 2014 has been passed in wrongful
and arbitrary manner, suffice it to say by this Court that at the
time of considering case of the petitioner for compassionate
appointment, there was no provision to extend such benefit to an
employee, who died while in service of the Bank and as such, no
fault can be found in the decision of the respondents, while issuing
the order dated 22nd October, 2014.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the
Apex Court, in the case of Canara Bank & Anr. (supra), has laid
down the law that benefits of the scheme of compassionate
appointment are required to be extended to the dependents of the
employee and as such, the Apex Court has extended the benefit to
the dependents of employee in respect of compassionate
appointment, even if there was no scheme at the relevant time,
this Court, on careful reading of the judgment, finds that the Apex
Court, considering the fact of death of the employee at the
relevant time and finding the scheme of compassionate
appointment in force at that time, allowed the claim of such
persons.
This Court finds that the fact situation, in the present case, is
altogether different and the judgment in the case of Canara Bank
& Anr. (supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner.
This Court, again after going through the judgment passed
by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Vinod Kumar
Sharma (supra), finds that the Coordinate Bench of this Court
had placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Apex Court in
the case of Canara Bank & Anr. (supra) and on the same
(7 of 7) [CW-3979/2015]
analogy, had allowed claim of the petitioner therein, as the
scheme was in force at the relevant time.
This Court finds that there is no dispute in the present case
that at the time of death of father of the petitioner, there was no
scheme as such and this Court is afraid to accept the submission
of learned counsel for the petitioner for grant of compassionate
appointment.
This Court also finds that the respondents have already
granted ex-gratia payment and other payments to the petitioner,
like provident fund, leave encashment, gratuity and further family
pension and as such, it cannot be inferred that family members of
the deceased-employee have been left high & dry after death of
the employee.
In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in the writ
petition, hence, the same is dismissed.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J
Preeti Asopa /21
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
