THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE B.PRAKASH RAO And THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.BHAVANI PRASAD W.P.No.458 of 2001 AND W.A.No.624 of 2003 COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per BPR,J) Since common questions arise in these two matters, they are taken up together for disposal at the request of the counsel on either side. Heard Sri K.Srinivasa Murthy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in W.A.No.624 of 2003 and for the respondents in W.P.458 of 2001 and Sri J.M.Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the respondent in W.A.624 of 2003 and for the petitioner in W.P.No.458 of 2001. The brief facts are, that in both the writ petitions where one is allowed and another is coming up for consideration, the petitioners are seeking appointment on compassionate grounds. In W.A.No.624 of 2003, the case of the writ petitioners, who are the wife and son of the deceased, who died in harness on 1-9-1995 due to severe heart attack, was that subsequent to death they submitted an application on 17-9-1995 for appointment on compassionate grounds followed by a reminder on 24-11-1995. However, as per the communication dated 13-2-1997, which is impugned, the said request was negatived on the ground that she is receiving pension from the bank for the service rendered by the husband, and therefore, her case cannot be considered. This rejection seems to be in pursuance of a letter dated 7-1- 1997 issued by the Government of India, which was in turn addressed to the bank at its instance. The case of the petitioner in short was that the rejection of her claim for appointment on compassionate grounds merely on the basis of receipt of pension is wholly misconceived. In support, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought to place reliance on a judgment of the apex Court in Balbir Kaur and Another v. Steel Authority of India Limited & Others[1]. The learned Judge, after contest from the appellant/management Bank did not find favour with the objections raised by the bank about the receipt of pension being a ground for rejection, and following the principles laid down by the apex Court in the aforesaid decision, allowed the writ petition since in the said decision the apex Court has held that introduction of family benefit scheme cannot be in any way equated with the benefit of compassionate appointment, and therefore, it cannot constitute a valid ground. Challenging the same, the present appeal has been filed by the Bank. Similar is the situation in W.P.No.458 of 2001, which is filed by the son of the deceased employee of the respondent Bank. The case of the petitioner in the said writ petition was that his father, who initially joined as a Clerk in the respondent bank on 2-3-1977, met with an accident on 28-6-1999 and succumbed to the injuries on 9-7-1999. The petitioner has filed an application along with the death certificate and legal heir certificate on 14-10- 1999 for appointment on compassionate grounds. Once again as per the impugned proceedings in the writ petition dated 11-7-2000, the case of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground of receipt of the family pension of Rs.4,135/- and a salary of Rs.5,800/- by his mother as a widow, who is working in railways. This case run on the self same lines that such receipt would not constitute any bar against the son, the petitioner to claim appointment on compassionate grounds. Having heard the counsel on either side and on perusal of the material, it is seen that there is no dispute in regard to the checkered events, which led to filing of the respective petitions claiming appointment on compassionate grounds. An attempt was made on behalf of the appellant to the effect that having regard to certain irregularities in sanctioning of loans when the deceased employee was working and found guilty of the charges, punishment was imposed by proceedings dated 6-3-1995 by way of stoppage of one increment with cumulative effect, which is due on 1-1-1996, the question of consideration would not come in favour of the petitioner therein. On hearing the submissions made from both sides and on perusal of the written arguments filed by the appellant and the writ petitioner, the only question which arises for consideration is as to whether on the facts and circumstances, a case for consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds could be rejected on the ground of receipt of family pension. The aforesaid question is no longer res integra as rightly held by the learned Single Judge relying on the principles laid down in the aforesaid decision of the apex Court wherein the apex Court while considering the similar such scheme, held that receipt of family benefit would not be equated with providing appointment on compassionate grounds. In view of the said principles and especially as nothing else has been pointed out on behalf of the appellant and the leaned counsel appearing on behalf of the management in contra, we have no other go except to follow the principles as laid down by the apex Court and hold that the rejection of the case of the petitioners in both the cases by the respondent bank for consideration of appointment on compassionate grounds merely on the ground of receipt of family benefit is totally unsustainable and accordingly the same are liable to be set aside. We do not find any merit in W.A.No.624 of 2003 and it is accordingly dismissed. W.P.No.458 of 2001 is allowed and the impugned proceedings Ref.No.Bh/Sin/2000, dated 11-7-2000 is set aside with a direction to consider the case of the respective petitioners in both the cases for appointment on compassionate grounds. No costs. __________________ (B.PRAKASH RAO,J) ___________________ (G.BHAVANI PRASAD,J) grk Date:07-04-2011 [1] 2000 (4) Supreme 602