THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.12 OF 2007 DATED 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 BETWEEN Pallepogu Tara Mariyadas …Appellant And The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Kandukur, Prakasam District, A.P. and another. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO.12 OF 2007 JUDGMENT: (Per GM,J) This writ appeal is directed against the order dated 03.08.2006 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.11676 of 2006 holding that as the case of the petitioner was already rejected by the respondents, no direction could be given to them to consider the case of the appellant/writ petitioner for grant of ex gratia in lump sum. It was the case of the appellant that his father while working as a Security Guard in State Bank of India, Kandukur, Prakasam District, the first respondent, died in harness on 03.07.2001 due to heart attack, leaving behind him four sons, including the appellant being the eldest among them and that his mother had predeceased his father in the year 1998. He stated that he belonged to a schedule caste community and passed S.S.C. Examination in March, 1990. His brothers were studying and were dependent on him as there was no other earning member in their family. Therefore, he made an application to the respondents on 04.01.2002 enclosing therewith a copy of the death certificate of his father and thereafter made several representations including the representation dated 26.05.2006 for appointment on compassionate grounds to any suitable post in the first respondent Bank in view of the sudden demise of his father. However, there was no response from the respondents. It was his further case that the respondent sent a letter to him five days before the filing of the writ petition, asking him to furnish his family particulars and signatures for payment of ex gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment but the said letter did not disclose the quantum that would be paid towards ex gratia. He therefore sought employment to any suitable post in the respondent Bank either in an existing or a future vacancy instead of payment of ex gratia amount. He thereafter approached this Court by way of the subject writ petition seeking a declaration that the inaction of the respondents in providing him employment in the respondent Bank on compassionate grounds was illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional being in flagrant violation of the doctrine of audi alteram partem. He sought a consequential direction to the respondents to appoint him to a suitable post either in any existing vacancy or in a future vacancy. On behalf of the respondents, the first respondent filed a counter denying all the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition. It was averred that the appellant was not entitled to or eligible for compassionate appointment as the appellant, being aged over 25 years was the married son of the deceased and he was not eligible as per the Rules, Regulations and Guidelines governing appointment on compassionate grounds and also taking into account the financial position of the family of the appellant, subsequent to demise of his father, including the payment of terminal benefits to the tune of Rs.2,29,624/-. The Competent Authority, the Chief Manager (Per & HRD), Local Head Officer, Hyderabad, examined the proposal for compassionate appointment of the appellant and declined the same having found no merit therein under its letter dated 16.07.2004, enumerating the reasons therefor, and the said decision was communicated to the first respondent, who in turn, sent a letter dated 26.07.2004 indicating the reasons for declining the proposal for the appointment of the appellant on compassionate grounds. While arriving at the said decision, the Competent Authority also relied upon the Judgment of the Supreme Court in SHRI UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL v. STATE OF HARYANA[1], wherein the Supreme Court dealt with the object of granting compassionate employment. In view of the said Judgment, the financial condition of the appellant, after due consideration, could not be termed as penurious. It was denied that the respondents ever addressed a letter, as alleged, to the petitioner for payment of ex gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment. It was the further case of the respondents that the respondent Bank had formulated a scheme called ‘SBI Scheme for Payment of Ex Gratia Lump Sum Amount’ by way of its Circular dated 11.08.2005, which came into force with retrospective effect from 04.08.2005, which replaced the compassionate appointment scheme existing at that point of time. Under the new scheme, the case of the petitioner could not be considered as his case was not pending consideration as on 04.08.2005, having been duly considered and rejected in July, 2004 itself and the respondent Bank had only called for those applications which were still pending consideration as on that date and advised those dependents to apply afresh for payment of ex gratia in lump sum thereunder. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned single Judge dismissed the writ petition under the impugned order dated 03.08.2006. Challenging the said order, the present writ appeal is preferred seeking a direction to the respondent-Bank either to appoint the appellant on compassionate grounds or in the alternative, pay ex gratia in lump sum under the new scheme formulated by it vide Circular dated 11.08.2005. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned standing counsel for the respondent Bank. The learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that as the respondent-Bank failed to appoint the appellant on compassionate grounds, it should have considered his case for payment of ex gratia in lump sum under the new scheme formulated by it vide Circular dated 11.08.2005 and paid the same to him. He pointed out that the so-called decision rejecting his case for appointment on compassionate grounds was not communicated to the appellant, as contended by the respondent Bank, and therefore he is entitled to payment of ex gratia in lump sum under the new scheme which came into force on 04.08.2005 by which date his case was, in fact, pending consideration before the respondent-Bank. He therefore sought a direction to the respondent-Bank either to appoint the appellant on compassionate grounds or in the alternative, to consider his case for payment of ex gratia in lump sum under the new scheme formulated by it. Per contra, the learned standing counsel for the respondent- Bank submitted that the case of the petitioner for appointment to a suitable post in the respondent-Bank had been considered and rejected by the Competent Authority by its letter dated 16.07.2004, the contents of which were communicated to the appellant by the first respondent by its letter dated 26.07.2004. Thus, she contended that the appellant was neither entitled to seek appointment on compassionate grounds nor in the alternative, request for consideration of his case for payment of ex gratia in lump sum in lieu thereof under the new scheme formulated by the Bank vide its Circular dated 11.08.2005, in as much as his case was not pending consideration as on the relevant date. She submitted that the learned single Judge, considering all these aspects in the proper perspective and rightly placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in SHRI UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL, dismissed the writ petition. She therefore prayed for dismissal of the writ appeal. We have perused the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge as well as the material placed on record. While dismissing the writ petition, the learned single Judge held in the impugned order thus: “……The format of application given by a representative of a Union, cannot be treated as the one officially sent by the respondents. At any rate, it is the specific case of the respondents that the petitioner is neither entitled to grant of compassionate appointment nor grant of ex gratia in lump sum in lieu of compassionate appointment under the new scheme, which dispensed the grant of compassionate appointment, as his case was rejected much before the coming into force of the new scheme, which was made applicable only to cases which remained unconsidered and pending and not to those already considered and rejected. Since the case of the petitioner was already rejected, much before the coming into force of the new scheme, which provided for grant of ex gratia in lump sum in lieu of compassionate appointment, no direction can be given to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of ex gratia in lump sum on the basis of an application format, sent by a representative of a Union and not by the respondents.” In the process, the learned single Judge placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in SHRI UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL wherein the Supreme Court dealt with the issue as to the object of granting compassionate employment and, inter alia, held thus: “6. For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over.” Considering the case of the appellant on the touchstone of the law laid down by the Supreme Court on the aspect of appointment on compassionate grounds, it is discernible from the material placed on record that the proposal for compassionate appointment of the appellant was considered and rejected by the Competent Authority of the respondent Bank by its order dated 16.07.2004, the contents of which were communicated to the appellant by the first respondent by his letter dated 26.07.2004. The Competent Authority, while rejecting the case of the appellant, considered the relevant aspects of the matter in detail and passed a reasoned order. The contention that the said communication was not served on the appellant, as demonstrated by the respondent-Bank, is specious. This fact was indeed averred in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent-Bank in the writ petition filed by the appellant. If really, the appellant had not received the letter dated 26.07.2004 sent by the first respondent, he should have filed a reply affidavit immediately thereafter denying the said fact. However, for reasons best known to the appellant, that was not done. Therefore, the fact remains that the first respondent had sent the letter dated 26.07.2004 informing the appellant as to the rejection of his request for appointment on compassionate grounds. As held by the Supreme Court in SHRI UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL, the Competent Authority of the respondent Bank, while rejecting the case of the petitioner, took note of the financial status of the appellant after settlement of the terminal benefits due to his deceased father. That being so, the appellant at this late stage cannot be permitted to build up a new case altogether that he had not received the letter dated 26.07.2004 from the first respondent and therefore, his case for compassionate appointment was pending consideration as on 04.08.2005 from which date the new scheme formulated by the respondent-Bank came into force for payment of lump sum ex gratia and that his request either for appointment on compassionate grounds or in the alternative, for payment of lump sum ex gratia be considered. The father of the appellant died on 03.07.2001 and the terminal benefits due to him were settled by the respondent Bank long ago. From the above, it is clear that the case of the appellant for appointment on compassionate grounds was not pending consideration as on 04.08.2005, having been duly considered and rejected by the Competent Authority of the respondent Bank by its letter dated 16.07.2004, the contents of which were communicated to the appellant on 26.07.2004 by the first respondent. The appellant is therefore not entitled to any relief as sought by him. The learned single Judge, taking into consideration all these aspects and placing reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in SHRI UMESH KUMAR NAGPAL, rightly dismissed the writ petition. We do not find any error, infirmity or irregularity in the impugned order warranting interference in this appeal. The Writ Appeal is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. __________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 13TH SEPTEMBER, 2011. VGSR/PGS [1] (1994) 4 SCC 138