Uttarakhand High Court
Maya Mishra vs Union Of India And Others on 1 March, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1410 of 2007
Maya Mishra ......... Petitioner
Vs.
Union of India and others .......Respondents
Present: Mr. J.C. Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anjali Bhargava, Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State.
Mr. D.S. Patni, Senior Advocate, for respondent no.2.
JUDGMENT
Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)
Instant writ petition has been preferred seeking the following
reliefs:-
"(i) Writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order
dated 9.5.1997 (Annexure-2) to the writ petition.
(ii) Writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the
respondents to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground
forthwith.
(iii) Writ, order or direction of a suitable nature as this Hon'ble Court
may deem fit and proper to the circumstances of present case.
(iv) Award costs to the petitioner."
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
3. According to the petitioner, her husband joined State Bank of
India as a Clerk on 05.06.1973. He got promotion and was working as Head
Clerk, when he died on 19.04.1995. After his death, petitioner applied for
appointment on compassionate grounds but it was rejected and communicated
to the petitioner on 09.05.1997 (Annexure -2). It is the case of the petitioner
that her claim for appointment on compassionate ground is genuine and
bonafide. She made various representations, but to no effect. Hence, the writ
petition.
4. On behalf of the respondent nos. 2 and 3, counter affidavit has
been filed.
5. The petition has been objected mainly on three grounds, namely,
(i) The request for appointment on compassionate ground of the petitioner
was forwarded to Government of India, Ministry of Finance Department and
Economic Affairs (Banking Division), New Delhi, but it was rejected on
26.03.1997, which is Annexure-1 to the counter affidavit. The respondent nos.
2 and 3 merely conveyed the petitioner the decision taken by the Government
of India on 26.03.1997; (ii) The present writ petition is highly belated and
suffers from unexplained negligence latches and delay; the office
memorandum issued in this behalf requires that such appointments should be
considered within four years from the date of death of the employee' and (iii)
the petitioner never deserved to be appointed on compassionate ground
because the pension and other amount which she received post death of her
husband were enough for the livelihood of the family.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that after the
death of her husband, who died under suspicious circumstances, the family
was under tremendous financial restraints; they could not live a meaningful
life and the petitioner deserved to be appointed on compassionate ground, but
the respondents denied for it without assigning any reason.
7. When requested to tell, as to how now of the petitioner may be
appointed on compassionate ground because she is now 66 years of age, as
per her affidavit filed alongwith restoration application. To it, learned counsel
for the petitioner would submit that a lump sum amount may be awarded to
the petitioner, which is the scheme now promulgated by the State Bank of
India.
8. On behalf of the respondent no.2, learned Senior Counsel would
submit that the scheme for lump sum payment was introduced in the year
2005 and was applicable to those employees, whose claim was pending on
that day. It is argued that since the claim of the petitioner had already been
rejected long back, there is no occasion to consider making lump sum
payment to the petitioner. It is argued that, in fact, according to the scheme for
appointment on compassionate ground, in case, disciplinary proceedings is
pending against the employee, such cases are referred to the Government of
India; it was done in the instant case also and Government of India vide its
letter dated 26.03.1997, declined the request of the petitioner. It is this
communication of the Government of India, which was conveyed to the
petitioner; the order dated 26.03.1997 issued by the Government of India has
not been put to challenge. Learned Senior Counsel would also submit that the
lump sum pension scheme is not available to anyone as a matter of right. The
scheme was launched in the year 2005. Since, then Scheme has also been
modified.
9. The writ petition was filed on 26.03.2001. It is almost 20 years.
It gets its disposal today. We cannot comment on this state of affairs. The writ
petition was filed for appointment on compassionate ground. The system took
20 years for its disposal. We can only hope that it should not happen again.
Such claims should be decided with utmost speed.
10. Be it as it may, the relief for appointment cannot be granted now,
because the petitioner is 66 years of age. There is no claim for lump sum
payment. The Court would have considered it, but, it is informed that the
scheme itself was introduced in the year 2005, when the claim of the
petitioner was not pending with the respondents. Though, the order rejecting
the claim of the petitioner does not carry any ground as to on what grounds
claim for appointment of the petitioner was rejected. But, in the counter
affidavits, amongst others, one ground which is suggested is that the petitioner
had sufficient financial resources to live a meaningful life. Now at this stage,
this Court restrains to examine this aspect because as stated, the petitioner
cannot now be appointed on compassionate ground. It is a fact that after the
death of her husband in the year 1995, the petitioner filed instant petition in
the year 2001.
11. Having considered all the aspects of the matter, this Court is of
the view that this writ petition deserves to be dismissed at this stage.
12. The writ petition is dismissed.
(Ravindra Maithani, J.)
01.03.2021
Jitendra
