IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6629 of 2006 GAYATRI DEVI wife of Birendra Kumar, resident of village Bhikhanpura P.O.Bhatoliya P.S. Desari, Dist. Vaishali-------------petitioner Versus 1.THE CHAIRMAN-CUM-MANAGING DIRECTOR, Central Bank of India, Kendriya Karjalay Nariban Point, Mumbai, Pin Code 400 021 2.The Joint Manager, Central Bank of India, Anchalik Karjalay Pawapuri Bihar, Bhagwanpur Chouk, Dist.Muzaffarpur Pin Code 842001 3.The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India Regional Office Speaker Chouk, Muzaffarpur Dist. Muzaffarpur, Pin Code 842001 4.The Branch Manager, Central Bank of India, Branch Daud Nagar, P.S.and Dist.Vaishali --------respondents ----------- For the petitioner :Mr.Binod Kr.Ambashtha For the respondents :M/S Prashant Vedasen Subash Chandra Bose ----- 4. 20.4.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for Central Bank of India. The petitioner seeks appointment of her son Rajeev Ranjan on compassionate ground on the death of her another son Manoj Kumar while in service of the Bank. It is stated that the said son died on 16.9.2001 while he was unmarried leaving behind his mother (the petitioner), father, two brothers and two sisters. Statement is made that representation was filed for appointment of her son Rajeev Ranjan on 2 compassionate ground but no date of the application is mentioned. In the counter affidavit it is stated that an application dated 15.10.2001 was received by the respondent Bank on 23.11.2001 in which the petitioner had claimed for compassionate appointment of herself. The same was not followed up by the petitioner and now she has come to this Court claiming appointment on compassionate ground in favour of her son. No such application was ever filed with respect to the son on the said ground. It is stated that the petitioner’s claim is not maintainable at all. The stand taken in the counter affidavit is that as per recommendation of the Indian Banking Association, the apex body of the Banking Organisation which has been approved by the Government of India, appointment on compassionate ground has been stopped and as such the respondent Bank has no provision to appoint on compassionate ground. In view of the aforesaid stand of the respondent Bank and considering the fact that no application for compassionate appointment 3 of her son, Rajeev Ranjan was ever filed by the petitioner, this Court does not find any substance in the writ petition. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/