IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 1858 of 2005 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 02/09/2005 in WP NO : 19406 OF 2005 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 State Bank Of Hyderabad Through itss Managing director Head Office , Gunfoundry Hyderabad. 2 The Chief Manager Personel Dept State Bank of Hyderabad Gunfoundry , Hyderabad. .....Appellants AND 1. D.Madhuri D/o.Late D.V.s.Rama Mohan Rao R/o. H.No.16-13-741/C/A/16 , Plot No.16 SBH Colony, Moosarambagh Hyderabad. 2. The Union of India Rep by its under secretary Ministry of Finance Dept of Economic Affairs Banks Division . Parliament Street . New Delhi. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: Counsel for the Respondent No.: The Court made the following : ORDER: (Per Sri Justice GHULAM MOHAMMED) This Writ Appeal has been filed being aggrieved by the judgment-dated 1.3.2004 of the learned single Judge passed in W.P.No. 20593 of 1997. Writ Petition No. 20593 of 1997 was filed by the first respondent herein declaring the inaction of the appellants herein in providing employment to her on compassionate grounds as arbitrary and illegal. The learned Single while allowing the Writ Petition held as under: “Following the ratio laid down in the Supreme Court in NAGARAJ SHIVARAO KARJAGI VS. SYNDICATE BANK[1] and also in the absence of any reasons in the letter, dated 5.11.1996 and in the absence of any counter justifying the decision of the Government of India, I am unable to uphold the action of the Government of India, in negativing the proposal of the Bank for appointing the petitioner on compassionate grounds. In my considered opinion such direction issued by the Union of India is without jurisdiction and contrary to the scheme formulated by the first respondent-Bank. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the 1st respondent-Bank Sri V. Jogayya Sharma placing reliance upon a decision of the Bombay High Court in W.P.No. 2731 of 2001, dated 28.8.2003 contended that when the Bank has framed a specific scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds, the conditions alone shall govern such appointment and the decision of the Bank in rejecting such cases cannot be interfered with by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There can be no dispute as to the ratio laid down in the said decision, but the facts in the case on hand are entirely different. As can be seen from the material on record, the respondent-Bank never raised any objection as to the appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds. Admittedly, the first respondent Bank framed a scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds and there is nothing on record to show that the petitioner did not satisfy the guidelines under the scheme. As a matter of fact the first respondent Bank never rejected the request of the petitioner. The only objection was by the Union of India, which was already held to be unsustainable. In the circumstances, the decision cited by the learned Counsel for the 1st respondent cannot be pressed into service in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is allowed as prayed for. No order as to costs.” The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the first respondent has been continuing on temporary basis and he cannot be granted regular appointment and as far as the seniority is concerned, he cannot be considered for reconing his seniority from the date of his initial appointment. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent contended that when the scheme itself has contemplated that compassionate appointment has to be given to see that the grieved family should not suffer and to that effect though the Bank has already taken decision and forwarded the decision to the Union of India, represented by it’s under Secretary, Ministry of Finance Department of Economic Affairs, the Union of India did not accept the proposal of the Bank for appointment of the first respondent herein on compassionate grounds. He submits that the Union of India, instead of appreciating the proposal made by the Bank, illegally and without any jurisdiction denied the benefit of compassionate appointment to the first respondent. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for both sides and perused the material made available on record. As seen from the material made available on record, the learned single Judge allowed the Writ Petition observing that the Bank framed a scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds and first respondent applied for it. By the time the decision of Union of India was rendered, rejecting the proposal of the Bank for appointment of first respondent in the Bank’s service on compassionate grounds, the Bank has already appointed the first respondent as per the orders of the learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No. 20593 of 1997. In the circumstances of the case, since the first respondent is working in the Bank on temporary basis, she is entitled for regular pay scale from the date of the judgment of the learned Single Judge in W.P.No. 20593 of 1997dated 1.3.2004 and also other benefits attached to the scale. As far as the seniority is concerned, the first respondent herein shall be given notional seniority from the date of the judgment of the single Judge in W.P.No. 20593 of 1997 dated 1.3.2004. Accordingly, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. _____________________________ GHULAM MOHAMMED, J ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR,J Dt. 01.07.2009 KA ………... REGISTRAR // TRUE COPY // SECTION OFFICER To 1. 2 CD Copies [1] 1991 (2) S.L.R. 874