s^ f^ "*«. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR D.B. Hon'ble Shri Raieev Guota. C.J.^ Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha. J. W.A. No. 122 of 2007 Smt. Sukanti Naik Versus The ChiefGeneral Manager, State Bank oflndia and others ORDER F'or copsideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA Sdi- ChiefJustice Post for order :27/03/2008 Sd/- Sunii KumarSinha Judge J T^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR D.B. Hon'ble Shri Raieev Guota. C.J. & Hon'ble ShriSunU Kumar Sinha, J. APPELLANT ^t, WRIT APPEALNo, 122 ot 2007 Smt. Sukanti Naik, W/o Late Shri Bhaskar Naik, Aged about 44 years, R/o Kumharpara, Santoshi Ward, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G). RESPONDENTS •V; Versus 1. The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, Hoshangabad Road, Bhopal (M.P.) 2. The Dy. General Manager, State Bank of India, ZoHal Office, Near Chhattisgarh College, Raipur (C.G) 3. The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Office, Region-4, Dharampura Road, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G). 4. The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Jagdalpur, Distt.Bastar (C.G) (Aoneal under Section 2 (11 ofthe Chhattisearh Hieh Court (ABUeal to Division Benchl Act 2006 ra^ Aonearance: Shri Alok Dewangan, coiuis^l for the appellant. Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, counsel for the respondents. ,^ft WritADpealNo. 122 of2007 i- ORDER (Z^.03.2008) Following order of the Court was delivered by SuaU Kufflar Shiha. J. (1) Being aggrieved with the order dated 27.2.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5715/2005, the appellant/petitioner has preferred this writ appeal. (2) The brieffaGts are that the husband of the petitiQner namely Shri Bhaskar Naik was working as a Security Guard in the State Bank of India, Main Branch, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar. He died in harness on 06.7.2000 leaving behind the petitioner (wife), 3 daughters and one minor son. After his death, the petitionermade an application for her appointment on compassionate grounds. Her application was processed and ultimately vide order dated 22.7.2005, the sarne was dismissed. (3) The contention of the respondents before fhe SingleJudge was that there is a Scheme for appointment on compassionate ground in terms ofthe guidelines received from the Government of India and the Indian Banks AssoGiation, aecording to which, the financial condition of the family has to be determined by the competent authorities before granting such appoinfaiient and if the authorities are satisfied that the family of the deceased is not in penury and the monthly inGome of the fainily n's-a-ns its size was adequate to tide over the immediate financial crisis caused by the death of the employee, then, the application for compassionate appointanent may not be accepted. They specifically pleaded that ^in case of the petidoner, the family of the deceased employee consisted of 5 dependent members; they have been paid terminal benefits comprising of Provident Fund Rs.62,760/-, gratuity Rs.28,147/- and leave encashment Rs.12,839/-. Besides the above, petitioners family received ainount froni. the credit society Rs.70,600/- and the family has also received Rs.1,57,531/- after deductions of Rs. 16,815/- towards the loan liabilities. They further pleaded that the petitioner's family is also being paid defence • )Y WritAoDealNo. 122 of2007 -"k .^'••' family pension of Rs.1677/- per month and therefore, in terms of Clause 10 ofthe said Scheme, the notional monthly income ofthe petitioner's family was computed as Rs.2,798/-. The authorities determined that the deceased husband had drawn the last gross salary ofRs.5,719/- and the net salary after various deductions was paid as Rs.3,5.77/- and the family of the deceased consisting of sbc members were managed with the take home salary of 3,657/-, therefore, in the present situadon, a family of 5 members would certainly be managed with the monthly income computed as above, therefore, the applicafion was rejected holding that the family ofthe deceased was not in penury. (4) The leamed single Judge considering the above grourids with reference t6 the provisions of Clause lOofthe SchemereGordedthe Ending that the authorities have rightly come to the conclusion that the family ofthe deceased eams sufficient income to maintain themselves, therefore, the petitioner was not entitied to compassionate appointment in terms of the provisions ofClause 10 of the Scheme. (5) Counsel for the appellant argued that the leamed single Judge has not dealt with the matter properly and has not considered the hardship caused due tb actual financial burden suddenly incurred on the family of the deceased on account of his death. He also argued that the order is against the spirit of provisions for compassionate appointment which is made for giving a financial assistance and support to the family of an employee who died in hamess. (6) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents opposed these arguments and supported the order passed by the learned single Judge. (7) We have heard leamed counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the writ appeal. (8) It is not disputed that in the present case, the matter of compassionate appointment is to be considered in accordance with WritAopealNo. 122 of2007 T^^i "-<><, J.fy^ ^^f.1 the Scheme called as Scheme for Appoinfment on Compassionate Grounds for dependents ofDeceased Employees/Employees retired on Medical Grounds (referred to as the Scheme in the order) and nofhing can be done on the discredon of any authority de-hors the Scheme. Clause 1 of theScheme deals with the objectsaying that object of granting compassionate appointment is to enable the famUy to tide over the sudden crisis due to death of the sole bread winner. The mere death ofan employee in hamess does not entitle his family to such a soiu-ce of livelihood. The object is to offer compassionate appointment only when the Bank is satisfied that the fmancial condition of the family is such that but for the provision of employment the family will not be able to meet the crisis. This clause also refers to the judgment of Supreme Court rendered in the matter of Umesh Kumeir Na.aOal -Vs- Stccte of Haruana.JT 1994 W SC 525 (9) Clause 10 of the Scheme deals with regard to the Htiancial condition of the family. It reads as under: "10. Financial condition ofthe fatnily: Appointments in the public services are made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. However, exceptions are rnade in favour ofthe dependents of employees dying in hamess and leaving their family in penury and without any means of livelihood. Determining the financial condition of the family is, therefore, on important criterion for deciding the proposals for compassionate appointment. The follbwing factors should be taken into account for determinuig the financial condition of the family: i) family pension ii) gratuity amount received iii) employee's/employer's contribution to provident fund , iv) any compensation paid by 'the Bank on Welfare Fund ^'•' -ili.lr[ WritADpealNo. 122 of2007 '^^ J^ .--'.^ £'••' •& v) Proceeds of L.I.C. policies and other investments of the deceased employee vi) Income of fainily from other sources vii) Income of other family members from employment or other sources viii) Size of family and verifiable liabilities, if any " (10) According to the return filed by the Bank, a computation of income in accordance with the provisions of Clause 10 has been done with an intention to find out the financial condition of the faraily and ultimately giving details about the terminal benefits received by the dependents as also the pensionary benefits which are being given to them, a notional monthly ineome has been determined and income of the family as on today and the take home salary of the deceased has been compared anda Ending has been recorded that looking to the number of family members existing as on today, the present financied benefits are proportionally sufficient to manage the family of the deceased and then only the application filed by the appellant/petitioner has been rejected. (11) In the matter of State Bank of India & ttnother -us- Somvir Singh, JT2007 (3) SC 398, the Supreme Court while dealing with the scope ofjudicial review held that High Courtsare not supposed to undertake any exercise to decide as to what would be the reasonable income which would be sufficient for the family for its survival and whether it had been left in penury or without any means of livelihood. In the said case, the Apex Court observed that the only question, the High Court could have adverted itself is whether the decision making process rejecfing the claim pf the respondent for cbmpassionate appointment is vitiated ? Whether the order is not in conformily with the scheme framed by the Appellant Bank ? The Apex Court said that it is well settled that the hardship of the dependent does 'not enfitle one to compassionate appointment de hors the scheme or the statutory provisions as the case may be. While observing further it was said ttiat the income of the family from all sources is required to be WritADDealNo. 122 of2007 'f^ f-/ ^* taken into consideration according to the scherae and then the niatter is to be decided. The decision rendered in Umesh Kumar Nagpal's case (supra) has.also been referred by the Apex Court in thisjudgment. (12) In the matter of General Manaaer fD&PB) an3 othiers-Vs- Kuntl Tiwaru and another f2004) 7 SCC 271, the Apex Coxut said that the retrial benefits received by the heirs of the deceased employee are to be consideredand then it has to be deterrmned that whether fhe family of the deceased had been left in penury or without any means oflivelihood. (13) If we apply the above principles in the facts and circumstances of the presenf case, it would appear that the application of the petitioner has been scrutinized in accordance with the provisions of Clause 10 of the scheme and every requirement set forth in Clause 10 has been satisfied by the Bank while considering the application of the petitioner. In the junsdiction of judicial review, we do not find any uTegularity or illegality committed by the Bank Authorities in the scrutiny of the application filed by the petitioner. Each and every source of income as required under Clause 10 has been categoricsdly considered, the referenceof which has been made in Para 6 offhe mipugned order. Therefore, ori this count, the authority cannot be faulted with. (14( In the matter of Puntab Nation.al Bcmk and others —Vs- Ashwtnt Kumar Taneld, 12004} 7 SCC 265. the Apex court Ueld that theappointment on the compassionate ground is not asource of recruitment but merely an exception to the requirement of rriaking appointanents on open invitation of application on merits. Basic iiatention is that on the death pf the employee concemed his family is not deprived of the means oflivelihood. The obj|ect is to enable the family to get over sudden finaiicial crisis. The Apex Court further held in the matter of I.G. fKcinnik) and others -Vs- Prahaleid SKmi Tripathi. 12007) 6 SCC 162 that the public employment is considered to be a wealth. It in terms of the •'fA? ^ WritAriDeaINo. 122 of2007 cOnstitutional schenie cannotbe given on descent. When such an exception has been carved out by the Supreme Court, the same must be strictly complied with. The Apex Court said that the appointmenl on coinpassionate ground is given only for meeting the unmediate hardship which is faced by the fainily by reason of the death ofthe bread eamer. When an appointment is made on compassionate ground, it should be kept confined only to the purpose it seeks to achieve, the idea being not to provide for endless compassion. (15) Therefore, it is clear that on the face of <;onstitutional mandate regarding equality of Opportunity in the matter of public employment and appointment toa public office under the State, hp discrimuiatioh is possible and the appointment on compassionate ground is an exception to the above principle that the recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accQuntable manner providing equal opportunity to the eligible persons and if the employer is considering a case under the exception that has to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions especially made for the same. (16) In the present case, as stated above, the Bank Authorities have considered the case ofthe petitioner giving strict meariing to the provisioris made for the same and nothing on generality or discretions would be possible toconsider fhecase ofthe petitioner. The learned single Judge has rightly held that the authorities have taken a proper decision and has rightly dismissed the petition filed by the petitioner. We do not firid any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. (17) The appeal has no merits and the same is accordmgly dismissed. (18) Nocosts. Sd/- »ChirfJustice Sd/- \ SunUKumarSinha Judge Rao