1 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: BENCH: INDORE (SINGLE BENCH: HON.MR.JUSTICE PRAKASH SHRIVASTAVA) WRIT PETITION NO.364/2009(S) Smt.Nirmal Dubey W/o Late Dilip Dubey.... Petitioners & another Vs. Punjab National Bank represented by Chairman & Managing Director & two others .... Respondents For petitioner: Shri V.P.Saraf, Advocate. For respondents: Shri H.Y. Mehta, Advocate. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Whether approved for reporting:- _______________________________________________________ O R D E R (Passed on 09th August, 2011) This Writ Petition has been filed by the petitioners' challenging the order dated 4/8/2008 by which the petitioners' case for compassionate appointment has been rejected by the respondents. [2] The case of the petitioners' is that late Shri Dilip Dubey, the husband of the petitioner No.1 and father of petitioner No.2 was employed with the respondent Bank as cashier. He died in harness on 18/4/2000, leaving behind his two sons namely Kapil, 2 presently aged about 24 years and Gaurav (petitioner No.2) aged about 23 years. The petitioner had filed an application for compassionate appointment of the petitioner No.2 which was initially rejected by the order dated 14/8/2001. This Court by order dated 6/5/2008 passed in WP No.19/2002 had set aside the order dated 14/8/2001 and directed the respondents to reconsider the prayer for compassionate appointment and pass a reasoned speaking order. The respondents thereafter have passed the impugned order dated 4/8/2008 rejecting the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment. [3] The case of the respondents is that the petitioners' case for compassionate appointment was considered in the light of the Scheme for compassionate appointment and since the condition of the family was not found to be indigent, therefore, the compassionate appointment was denied. [4] Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the respondents have committed an error in ascertaining the financial position of the petitioner. He further submitted that in terms of the Scheme, the petitioner No.2 was entitled for compassionate appointment and that the respondents have given discriminatory treatment to the petitioner inasmuch as other similarly situated applicants have been given the compassionate appointment. 3 [5] Learned counsel for respondents submits that the case of the petitioner has been considered keeping in view the Scheme of compassionate appointment and that the financial condition of the family has been ascertained by the respondents taking into account all the relevant factors, therefore, no interference of this Court is required. He submitted that the other cases which have been pointed out by the petitioners' were considered on their own facts and taking into account their financial condition, compassionate appointment was granted. [6] I have heard the learned counsel for parties and perused the record. [7] It is the settled position in law that the compassionate appointment is an exception to the general rule of making appointment in public services on the basis of open invitation of application and merit. The said exception has been carved out to support the dependents of the employee dying in harness and leaving their family in penury, without any means of livelihood. The Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India and others Vs. Jaspal Kaur reported in (2007) 9 SCCC 571 has held that the main criteria for appointing a person on compassionate ground should be the financial condition of the family of the deceased person. Unless the financial condition is entirely penury, such appointment cannot be made. 4 [8] The Scheme relating to the compassionate appointment (Annexure P.8) in the respondent Bank indicates that the compassionate appointment is to be made keeping in view the financial condition of the family left behind by the deceased. In terms of the Scheme, the respondents are required to ascertain the financial condition before granting compassionate appointment. [9] The respondents, by the impugned order, have rejected the petitioner's case for compassionate appointment taking note of the fact that the family had received Rs.2,16,463/- by way of terminal dues. The deceased employee had opted for pension, therefore, the family is in receipt of pension of Rs.3,606/- per month. The take home net salary of the deceased was Rs.7,698.70 per month at the time of death. It is also noted that the family is living in its ancestral house. Considering these factors, the respondents have found that the family was not indigent and, therefore, not entitled for compassionate appointment. [10] The facts which have been noted in the impugned order have not been disputed before this Court, but the finding relating to the family being not indigent has been questioned by the petitioners'. The petitioners' referring to para 5.9 of the Writ Petition has submitted that on account of the loan taken from relatives and friends, the petitioners have incurred substantial liability, but no documents in this regard have been placed on record. 5 [11] Even otherwise, it is the settled position in law that the finding relating to the financial status of the family arrived at by specially constituted authorities who are better equipped to decide the facts of the case, need not normally be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. This Court in the matter of Sushma w/o Late Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs. State Bank of Indore and another reported in 2009(4)MPLJ 526 while considering the same issue in para 13, has held as under:- “13. It has now been well settled that the Courts should not normally interfere with the decision of the competent authority in regard to the fact as to whether the deceased-employee left his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. It has been held by the Supreme Court that it is the job of the specially constituted authorities since they are better equipped to decide the facts of the case and their objective finding arrived on appreciation of full facts should not be interfered into by the Courts. [See State Bank of India and others vs. Jaspal Kaur, (2007)9 SCC 571]”. [12] In view of the aforesaid and considering the entire circumstances of the case, it is found that the finding of the respondents in the impugned order to the effect that the condition of the family of the petitioner is not indigent, does not require any interference. [13] It will not be out of place to mention here that the Writ Petition also indicates that the petitioner No.1 has taken employment in a private school and Kapil Dubey, elder son of the petitioner 6 No.1 is also employed in Harsh Automobiles (P) Ltd, though the employment is stated to be a temporary employment on paltry salary of Rs.3500/- per month. [14] Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of Kerala High Court in the matter of Canara Bank Vs. Priya Jayarajan reported in 2001(2)SCT 917, but the said judgment is of no help because in that matter the prayer for compassionate appointment was rejected only on the ground that the terminal benefits was given on the death of the employee, but in the present case the respondents have not only taken into account the terminal benefits but they have also considered all relevant factors to arrive at a finding relating to the financial condition of the petitioners'. [15] The petitioners' have also raised the plea of discrimination by stating the examples of Shri.Rajesh Mishra, Girish Tanksale, Smt. Manjusha Pandya and Renu Thanwani in whose cases the compassionate appointment has been granted. In the additional affidavit dated 29th June, 2011, the respondents have disclosed the relevant factors which were taken into account in those cases on account of which the compassionate appointments were granted to them. On due consideration of the same, it is found that the plea of discrimination raised by the petitioners cannot be sustained. 7 [16] Thus, no ground for interference is made out. The Writ Petition is accordingly dismissed. (Prakash Shrivastava) JUDGE VM