IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1962 of 2006 BASHUKI NATH JHA Versus UNITED BANK OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the petitioner: Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha,Advoate For Respondent-Bank: Mr.Binod Bihari Sinha,Advocate Mr.Sunil Kumar Sinha,Advocate --- 3. 22.1.2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground since his father, who was an employee of the respondent- United Bank of India, died in harness on 8.11.1999. It is stated that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the order dated 18.12.2000 without any legal basis. On a consideration of the aforesaid order dated 18.12.2000 (Annexure-4), it is found that the rejection is on the ground that under the died- in- harness Scheme of the respondent- Bank only the widow of the deceased employee can be considered for appointment in the Bank or in lieu thereof, she can claim one time lump sum financial assistance amounting to Rs. 1.5 lacs provided her income as calculated from the estate of the deceased does not exceed Rs. 3,000/- per month or she can claim Rs.1.0 lac as one time lump sum financial assistance if her monthly income exceeds Rs.3,000/- but within Rs. 5,000/-. The said Scheme has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It is evident from the said Scheme that the family in relation to a deceased employee has been confined to a surviving spouse and the benefits are only available to the widow of the deceased employee under the said Scheme. No compassionate appointment is 2 available to any other person and as per the impugned order the mother of the petitioner had already expired and thus nothing was available to the family of the deceased under the died in harness Scheme of the Bank. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chairman, State Bank of India and ors. Vs. Vinod Kumar Yadav and Another: 2008 (4) PLJR 425. The decision in the said case is based entirely upon the Scheme prevailing in this regard in the State Bank of India and nothing has been laid down therein, which is applicable to the facts of the present matter. It is evident that the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit or relief under the Scheme of the respondent-Bank. In the above circumstances, the writ petition must fail and it is, accordingly, dismissed. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.)