IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6347 of 2006 Upendra Singh, son of Late Ganesh Singh (Bank Guard) resident of village- Gyanpura, Post Office- Kaura, Police Station-Jagdishpur, District-Bhojpur (Ara). ………… Petitioner Versus 1. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Gandhi Maidan, Patna 2. The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bhagalpur 3. The Assistant General Manager, Region-II, State Bank of India, Zonal Office, Bhagalpur 4. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Pakur Branch, District- Pakur (Jharkhand) ………………. Respondents. ----------- For the petitioner:- M/S. Barun Kumar Chaudhary & Pawan Pathak, Advocates For the State Bank of India: M/S Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha & Sunil Kumar Singh,Advocates ------------ 3. 17.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank. The petitioner seeks a direction upon the Respondent- State Bank of India to appoint him on compassionate ground after the death of his father while he was serving the Bank as a Bank Guard. In this regard he further seeks quashing of the impugned order dated 1.3.2005 by which the claim of the petitioner has been rejected for appointment on compassionate ground. The grounds taken in the writ petition are that the authorities have wrongly calculated the income of the family from all sources at Rs. 7121/- per month, whereas, according to the petitioner the amount of Rs. 3,95,000/- shown as liquid assets on account of receipt of various dues from the Bank is not correct and the said amount has been reduced on account of recovery of Bank’s dues of - 2 - Rs. 29,000/-, payment of 90,000/- towards personal loan from sundry individuals for the treatment of deceased employee who was suffering from kidney ailment, Rs. 25,000/- towards expenses on account of cremation and Rs. 55,000/- towards medical expenses of the first daughter of the deceased who expired on 12.10.2002 after the expiry of the petitioner’s father on 5.8.2002. It is further submitted that movable and immovable assets had been wrongly taken as Rs. 2.49 lacs whereas the same is worth Rs. 98 thousand only. In support of the aforesaid stand learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Mukesh Kumar Vs. the Union of India & ors.: (2007) 8 SCC 398. Learned counsel for the State Bank of India, on the other hand, submits that the decision is well considered one. It is submitted that apart from family pension of Rs. 2793/-, an amount of Rs. 2153/- is being received as Army pension as also the assumed interest at 80% of the liquid surplus of Rs. 3,95,000/- which comes to monthly interest of Rs. 1975/- and MWS monthly release of Rs. 200/-. It is thus, submitted that the calculation of Rs. 7121/- as the total monthly income of the family is in accordance with the scheme laid down by the Bank and for the said reason, the Bank has rightly come to the conclusion that the family is not living in penury and therefore, unfit for compassionate appointment. It is however, admitted that in the final order dated 9.2.2005 of the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, Bhagalpur Rs. 2.49 lacs is shown as movable/immovable asset and that in the said letter it has been also stated that Rs. 0.80 lac - 3 - is the immovable asset. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the State Bank of India that in the recommendation made by the Assistant General Manager, under the head immovable property Rs. 0.80 lacs was shown and thus, as a matter of fact, the final order does not suffer from any illegality as in any case the total income is not affected by the said enumeration of movable/immovable properties. It is argued that while the petitioner himself admits the value of the house property to be Rs. 98,000/-, the Bank has only taken an amount of Rs. 80 thousand as stated. In support of the aforesaid stand learned counsel for the Respondent-Bank relies upon a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India & ors. Vs. Jaspal Kaur: 2007(2) PLJR 39 (SC) in which under similar circumstances the Apex Court had held in para-22 of the judgment as follows:- “Hence a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family the deceased person left behind. Unless the financial condition is entirely penury, such appointments cannot be made. In the present case the financial condition of the respondents family is not one of destitution, the appellants have already paid a sum of Rs. 4,57,607/- as terminal benefits (after deducting Rs. 19,183/- towards liabilities); a sum of Rs. 2055/- p.m. was being paid towards family pension and monthly income under Staff Mutual Welfare Scheme and in addition the total monthly income of the family comes to Rs. 5855/- (monthly pension of Rs. 2055/- + Rs. 3800/- p.m. as notional interest on the investment of Rs. 4,57,607/-). The competent fact finding authority on the basis of the above financial condition of the family is not penurious and that the family earns sufficient income to maintain themselves. Hence appointment on compassionate ground was not granted to the respondent. We however, do not feel the necessity to interfere with this order of the - 4 - Bank Authority on the fact situation of this case.” Learned counsel further relies upon a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in the case of State Bank of India & ors. Vs. Manoj Kumar: 2009(1) PLJR 593. From a consideration of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jaspal Kaur (supra), it is evident that on the application of similar formula of interest on total liquid asset as also the family pension and MWS scheme and the income of Rs. 5,855/- the Apex Court had taken that the Bank was justified in not granting compassionate appointment to the respondent of that case and the order of the Bank-authority was not interfered with. So far as the reliance by learned counsel for the Bank on Manoj Kumar’s case is concerned, it lays down that subsequent conditions after the expiry of the time prescribed for making a request for compassionate appointment in prescribed proforma are not to be taken into consideration and the same has no relevance to the facts of the present case. Similarly reliance by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision of the Supreme Court in Mukesh Kumar’s case can be of no avail as in the said case the departmental authorities had not given any indication as to how they had arrived at the conclusion that the family of the deceased was not in indigent condition. That is not the position here where all the details are of a factual nature and based on the records of the Bank regarding payment made to the petitioner’s family as also the materials on the record which have not been disputed by the petitioner except to the extent that certain expenditures are stated - 5 - to have been made at the subsequent stages. Even if the so called expenditure made by the petitioner’s family subsequent to the death of the deceased employee are taken into consideration the same would still not lead to a conclusion that the petitioner’s family is indigent since apart from the family pension they are also receiving army pension of a substantial amount. In the aforesaid view of the matter, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. S.Pandey (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)