IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.14498 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: SEPTEMBER 17, 2009 Vimal Kumar .....PETITIONER Versus State Bank of India and another ....RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL --- Present: Mr.D.R. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. .. SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The father of the petitioner was working as Messenger in the respondent-bank. Unfortunately he died on 4.11.1998. It is the case of the petitioner that after the death of his father, one of the family members was entitled for compassionate appointment under the Bank Policy. In this regard an application was also filed, but the respondent bank did not consider the same for some time. When a detailed representation was filed, then the Branch Manager of the respondent bank was asked to recommend the case of the petitioner. It is further the case of the petitioner that ultimately vide Annexure P6 the case of the petitioner was recommended for compassionate appointment, but subsequently the Policy of the bank has changed and under the changed Policy, the claim of the employees, who died before that Policy, is also to be considered for grant of ex-gratia financial assistance. Counsel for the petitioner contends that till date the claim of the petitioner has not been considered and no final decision has been taken for granting the said benefit to the petitioner. In view of these C.W.P. No.14498 of 2009 -2- facts, counsel for the petitioner states that at this stage the petitioner may be permitted to file a detailed representation to the respondents within 15 days and respondent No.2 may be directed to consider and decide the said representation within the reasonable time. In view of the aforesaid facts, without issuing notice to the other side as it will unnecessary delay the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.2 that in case the petitioner files a representation within 15 days from today, respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the same expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months, in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order. September 17, 2009 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) vkg JUDGE