ws '•••'fr BBK;. %' KWsK': |NSTM£lm©w8^ M^fta»ftiaSaiiMi eNHNTFliiG^^i-1 w.M^WMS^isaos :':-i'^'; ^^~i"21;M RE1-ITIONER LtmesMRKumar Ttlawait ^ .- S/©tEatei©aufamRrasad!1~ha\jvait Age&:.a&out';25:.years,,..i,,;^,:,~. %:"• Fyo l^niflucli Para Raigarft?{ aiN W» aiEss^i.is .^ R.ESPONlDENtS ••s ^a. ^^ yM^^i ^y 1^'1:: St^ats^:@alrilK0N'ndia: 1 . '.,^';,::.;; S Th're)|.i@lji?;(5ti'j^f;i;©en|era|:.,:IVtgjiager' ^|.^)^|ll]|^Sa^||g||j|Q^,l|l^s|i|jgga|g| ^lalgKWKfijSWiK Dg||)|i|^|^TOral^:MSHager'I,||||l|||'i|gl||gj!|||j '^L.i^'^'^'^''':"::' i^'R^^ ^S^: '.••;' 'i. ;-'\^:. ^:;^:^::';'.' ^::'^'L :;^'^K;(::T; ^'^t^h '^1%: ^•^il!i^1iB^ Sta|||iin|s^ln^d^Z6naJ|^l|i||ff'Jit|iiBg1 :'K;.':-.isKi BSii .BaiFa.n|^Ba|za'j°,^;'Raipu:r::(©:.©.;);.:! / :iff:.i.:':.'Sli^ S:feffi WRt :»EiJh1'l@N!lKNiiIiKaSgnilBiBB12!l6a(22i7'a(tK. :1' ^f::ltSM^ttTBIiBi|B ®fiaNBWi!^'l£c Ww. ;SKUI :'a>BI m ] 'liil HIGHCOURTOFCHHATnSGARHATBILASPUR , WRIT PETmON No: 305^<€200& , r, ! PETmONER : Umash Kumar Thawaft. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State Bank of!nAa& aiKrtha. WRTT PETIT[QN UNDER ARTICLE 226327 OF THE CONSTrTUTION OF DStDIA 8B: Hon'bte Shrt Sattoh K. ^ariliotei. J. Present: Shri M.L.PastM®,Advocate fw tiie petiti<mer. Shri B.D.Guru, Advorade fwthe Fesp<mdente. OSALOBMiR (Passed on 16tt day of March, 2010) Heard. 1. By ttus petition, Ifae petitiona- seeks quashaig <rf ^be oider dsited 14.7.2004 issued by the respondente whereby |the appli<ation ofthe petitiona- for grant ofcmqwssionate q)pomtment has beai rejeeted and furdier todirect fhe reqxMidents to gfaal eonqiassionate appsaetaaeaSt to fhe petitioner. 2. Shri Pastore, leamed coinKel agpeariag fw Vae prtitiona' sulmats that the father of Ifae petitioner aamely G.P.Tlawait, lAile woriciag as Assistairt Manager with the respondent-Baak, died in hamess <ai 02.06.1998. Late G.P.Thawait left bdund Ms wi&, a s<m aad adro^ter. Tlie petitioner, being the son, made aa ^tplieation fiw graitf of eompassionate appointaeHt <m 27.03.1999 (Annexure P/2). Tte application ofthe pelitioaer was rejeeted by tiie resp<mdent-^tik ai 05.06.2004 (Annexure P/5).Tlae petitioner ^pin made arqMi oa 19.6.2004 (Amiexure P/6) but Ifae same was also rejected vide order dated 14.7.2004 (Annexure P/7) witfaout any ihyme and reason. 3. Per contra, leamed counsel sppeating &r the TO^xmdert-Batik submits that the application offhe petitionCT' has beeaa. cansida-ed ia with the scheme of the Baak for grant of conyassionate and under the schane, the case ofdie petitioner was asst fcuait fit fcr graat of compassionate a{qx>mtaent The dependent fiuaily menriws were paid temunal b^efits con^msing ofp'ovident fiia Rs. 3,79,t93/-, gratuity of Rs. 1,96,124/- an amount of Rs. 20,800/- under Muteal Welfare Scheme aad in additi<»,a sian ofRs. 6545 par moutfa as Pension and Ks. 500/- per moalfa under Ihe Mdual Wdfare :ta;'?!^';; w'^ Amit 8. 9. Scteae^ 'HIBS, tiifrainourit'reeereed by Ito dq>e»Kte<&mity men]l«ts. underlhe various heads, as afMestated, ww sufiuamt ema^i.fe tiiw Uvelihood. . .. ,; The claim ofthe petitioaer for grant of con^assacnate appointB^nt has rigjitly been rejectedon die groundthat lfae.dq>aulait &aufymanbera had enoug}i source of income for ttea- Bvelifaood as Ihe sole piupoee of compassionate ^pointment is to provide iaimediate reliefand SUCCOT to tiie family in distress as under tiie scheme ofthe reqxmdent-Barik far graat of conyassionrte q>pomtmait, it is previded tfaat tflhe dependent feniily membere have sufficient soia?ee of income to mMatoin themselves, eonyassionate appointmentnay nat be granted. Fuiflier, it is weU settled pincipto of law Ifaat appoutfment on eompassBonate graund is not a method ofieanatment, but is a fecilily to provide fw immediate rehabilitation of tiie faarily in diBtrass for relieving Ihe <fependait fimaly members <rf1he deeeased emplayee &<»a destitution. In o<hw words, Ifae objeet <rf cwapaswvWte appdntmefflt is toenablepenuriousfatnilyto tideovertbesudctofinanculCTisisaadis notto pKwide employment. (See : Harymw Swe ElecWcity Bowd aml arKtther v. ffaSam Singff, State ofManipwry. Md. Regaodiif, aad Sfate ofJ&Kandothers v. SafadAhmedAS^ ). The deceased, O.P.Thavmit ^ed en 02.06.1998. Tliawafter, tte petitioner aixl tiie otfaer faniily members haw sistMned themselws tiB dafe for more than 12 yeats. 'Ilms, (he vay {mrpose of graat of conyassionate aCTomtmait does not survive attfas stage. ^)plying the well settled principle oflawtote fiids offlie case aad for tiie reasons BKntioned tereinabove, there is no meanit m fhis petitian, warranting interference. The petiti<ai feils and is aecordingly disinissed. No wder asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge