Uttarakhand High Court
Bank Of Baroda vs Sunny Kumar on 28 February, 2024
Reserved
IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
AT NAINITAL
MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI, C.J.
AND
MR. JUSTICE RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Reserved On : 22.02.2024
Delivered on: 28.02.2024
SPECIAL APPEAL NO. 20 OF 2024
Bank of Baroda ...Appellant
Versus
Sunny Kumar .........Respondent
Counsel for the appellant : Mr. Siddharth Jain.
Counsel for the respondent : Mr. Tapan Singh.
Upon hearing the learned Counsel, the Court
made the following
JUDGMENT :
(per Ms. Ritu Bahri, C.J.)
The Bank has come-up in the Appeal against
the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 20th
December, 2023, whereby the writ petition filed by the
respondent challenging the order dated 30.07.2021
(Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by appellant
denying him the benefit of compassionate appointment
has been allowed. A direction has been given by the
learned Single Judge to the Bank to immediately give
compassionate appointment to the respondent within a
period of eight weeks from the date of the order.
2. Brief facts of the present case are that the
respondent's father-late Shri Rajan was posted as a
Class-IV regular employee with the appellant-Bank. He
died, while in service, on 10.06.2019 leaving behind
two sons, namely Sunny Kumar (respondent) and
Sanjay Kumar, a daughter, namely Priyanka and
widow-Kamlesh. The respondent moved an application
on 06.07.2019 for compassionate appointment before
the competent Authority of the Bank. As regards the
claim of compassionate appointment raised by the
respondent, other legal heirs of the deceased had given
their No Objection. Vide order dated 30.07.2021, the
appellant-Bank rejected the claim of the respondent for
compassionate appointment on the ground that Sanjay
Kumar, the elder son of the deceased, is already
gainfully employed and the respondent was also
engaged as a Business Facilitator during the time of the
death of his father late Mr. Rajan and the financial
condition of the family is not proven to be indigent.
3. The learned Single Judge, while allowing the writ
petition, observed as follows:-
(1) The petitioner's elder brother was married
and was living with his family at Champawat. He
has two children-one son (14 years of age) and
one daughter (6 years of age) and has taken a
loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- for treatment of his son
from Bank of Baroda, Kelakhera, Gadarpur, and
he has his own liabilities and responsibilities.
(2) After the death of the respondent's father,
pension was sanctioned in favour of the wife of the
deceased, i.e. the mother of the respondent and
the terminal benefits were given to the family i.e.
Rs. 10,55,000/-.
(3) The respondent is working as a Business
Facilitator in the appellant-Bank, which was a very
meager amount and he could barely sustain
himself with this amount.
(4) As per the Scheme of compassionate
appointment of the Bank (Annexure-5) dated
18.02.2016, the applicant had two options (1) to
take compassionate appointment or (2) to take
payment of lumpsum ex gratia amount.
4. In this Scheme, it is further provided that as per
the earlier Scheme of 5th August, 2014, if any of the
legal heir of the deceased had taken financial
assistance, he/she, after returning the financial
assistance received to the Bank, can seek appointment
on compassionate ground.
5. The general conditions of the 2014 Policy read as
under:-
"16.1 Appointment made on grounds of
compassion to be done in such a way that persons
appointed to the post do not have the essential
educational and technical qualifications and
experience required for the post consistent with
the requirement of maintenance of efficiency of
administration.
16.2 It is not the intention to restrict employment
of a family member of the deceased or medically
retired sub-staff employee to an erstwhile sub-
staff post only. As such, a family member of such
erstwhile sub-staff employee can be appointed to
a clerical post for which he / she is educationally
qualified, provided a vacancy in clerical post exists
for this purpose.
16.3 An application for compassionate
appointment shall, however, not be rejected
merely on the ground that the family of the
employees has received the benefits due / the
benefits under the various welfare schemes.
While considering a request for appointment on
compassionate grounds, a balanced and objective
assessment of the financial condition of the family
has to be made taking into account its assets and
liabilities (including the benefits received under
the various welfare schemes mentioned above)
and all other relevant factors such as the presence
of an earning member, size of the family, etc.
16.4 Compassionate appointment shall be made
available to the person concerned if there is a
vacancy meant for compassionate appointment
and he or she is found eligible and suitable under
the scheme.
16.5 Requests for compassionate appointment
consequent on death or retirement on medical
grounds or erstwhile sub-staff may be considered
with greater sympathy by applying relaxed
standards depending on the facts and
circumstances of the case.
16.6 Compassionate appointment will have
precedence over absorption of surplus employees
and regularization of temporary employees."
6. A perusal of the above said Rules shows that the
prayer for compassionate appointment cannot be
rejected merely on the ground that family member of
the deceased has received the benefit and this case
should be considered by objective assessment of the
financial condition of the family and the request has to
be considered with greater sympathy by applying
relaxed standards depending on the facts and
circumstance of the case.
7. In the facts of the present case, the respondent
was working as a Business Facilitator and was getting
Rs. 375/- per loan, which he could get sanctioned from
the Bank in favour of the client. His brother was staying
separately. He had taken a loan of Rs. 7,00,000/- for
treatment of his son from Bank of Baroda, Kelakhera,
Gadarpur. The terminal benefit was given to the family
ie. Rs. 10,55,000/-, which itself is no ground to reject
the claim of the respondent for compassionate
appointment. In our view, the writ petition has rightly
been allowed by the learned Single Judge, keeping in
view the Scheme for Compassionate Appointment
dated 18.02.2016 (Annexure 5 to the Appeal). The
judgment dated 20.12.2023 passed by the learned
Single Judge does not require any interference and the
same is affirmed.
8. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as
to costs.
_____________
RITU BAHRI, C.J.
__________________
RAKESH THAPLIYAL, J.
Dt: 28th February, 2024
Rathour
