CWP No. 1930 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 1930 of 2008 Date of decision March 5, 2010 Navedeep Singh ....... Petitioners Versus State Bank of Patiala and another ........ Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. H. S. Dhandi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. C. B.Goel, Advocate for the respondents. **** K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. The petitioner has sought for issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondent for payment of ex-gratia/insurance on account of death of the petitioner's father Gurmohinder Singh and to give relief of compassionate appointment. The statement in defence was that all the amounts which were required to be paid had already been paid and the retiral benefits had been determined as payable after adjudication of outstanding loan amount under various heads to the tune of Rs.7,45,499.76 . The balance amount of Rs. 12,05,045/- had been released in favour of the petitioner. The petitioners claim that Rs. 3,00,000/- under the Staff Welfare Scheme was still payable to which the contention in defence is that the amount had been deposited in the saving bank account of the deceased. Learned counsel for the petitioner contested this claim made on behalf of the bank and on direction from this Court, the counsel for the respondent places on record the Bank statement as well as the copies of the withdrawal slip. I see from the copy of the CWP No. 1930 of 2008 2 accounts that on 4.4.2006 the petitioner's father's account had been credited to 3 lacs and on 26.4.2006 the amount has been withdrawn by the mother of the petitioner. Copy of the withdrawal slip with the signatures of the mother is also filed. The genuineness of these entries is not now denied by the learned counsel. The claim for retiral benefits therefore is not tenable. 2. As regards the claim of compassionate appointment, the compassionate appointment is engineered through a scheme which sets out the eligibility criteria for such consideration. It disqualifies certain classes of persons from such claim. If the income of the family which would include the son,daughter and spouse of the deceased is more than 60% of the salary which is last drawn, the scheme will not be applicable. It is contended by the Bank that the petitioner's mother (and widow of the deceased) was herself a salaried employee getting more than Rs.23,000/- and the last drawn salary of the petitioner's father was Rs.18,419/-. As such the petitioner shall not be entitled for favourable consideration under the said scheme. 3. I uphold the contentions raised in defence and reject the petition as devoid of merits. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall, however, be no direction as to costs. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 5 , 2010 archana