IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.: 747 of 2003 Reserved on: 7.1.2008 Decided on: 25.02.2008 Mrs. Savita Bhardwaj … … Petitioner. Versus UCO Bank and another. … Respondents. Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the Petitioner: Mr. Rama Kant Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate. Rajiv Sharma, Judge: The brief facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner’s husband Suresh Kumar Bhardwaj died in harness while working as a Clerk in the respondent-bank on 9.7.1999. He left behind the petitioner and two minor sons and one minor daughter. It appears from the pleadings of the parties that the petitioner had made a representation to the concerned authorities seeking appointment on compassionate basis immediately after the death of her husband. The case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected by the authorities in the year 2000. She made another representation to the General Manager of the respondent-bank on 19th January, 2003. She was informed vide communications dated 27.2.2003 and 28.7.2003, respectively that she was only entitled for a 1 Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No. - 2 - lump sum amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs and the appointment on compassionate basis could not be offered to her. Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate had strenuously argued that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered under the scheme for recruitment of dependants of deceased employees on compassionate grounds as circulated by the respondent-bank. He also contended that the income of the family did not exceed 60% of the last salary received by the deceased. Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, Advocate to the contrary has argued that the petitioner was considered as per the extant scheme but the petitioner was not found eligible for appointment on compassionate basis, but was held entitled for a lump sum amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs. He also contended that the income of the family from all sources is more than 60% of the last salary drawn by the deceased. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. This Court had directed the respondents to work out whether the case of the petitioner was covered under the scheme for recruitment of dependants of deceased employees on compassionate grounds or not. The respondent-bank has given the calculations on the basis of which it is evident that the gross salary of the deceased was Rs.10,535.97 paisa and the 60% of this amount comes to Rs. 6,321.58 paisa and the monthly income of the family is Rs. 6,840.38. Since the income of the family is higher than the gross salary of the deceased after considering monthly interest on lump sum amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs, the petitioner is not entitled to get appointment on compassionate grounds. The concept of offering appointment on compassionate grounds is to mitigate the hardships of the family faced - 3 - by it immediately after the death of the earning member of the family. In the present case the deceased died on 9.7.1999. The case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds was rejected in the year 2000 as per the scheme for recruitment of dependants of deceased employees on compassionate grounds. The petitioner reiterated her plea by making representation on 19.1.2003. The decision rejecting the case of the petitioner seeking employment was conveyed vide two communications dated 27.2.2003 and 28.7.2003. The contention made by Mr. Ramakant Sharma, advocate that the LIC amount was not to be included while calculating the income of the family cannot be accepted. The respondent-bank has rightly taken into consideration the amount of the LIC as per paras 7 and 8 of the scheme. The calculations made by the respondent-bank to assess the family income are in conformity with law and need not be interfered by this Court. The other contention put forth by Mr. Ramakant Sharma that similarly situated persons have been offered appointment on compassionate grounds by citing the case of one Sh. Praveen Kumar Sandhu is also not made out on the basis of the CMP No.1879/2007 filed by the respondent-bank. It is evident from the contents of the application that the last drawn gross salary of the family of the deceased Ram Lal Sandhu was Rs. 8,154/- and the 60% of this amount comes to Rs. 4,892.40 and the monthly income of the family was Rs. 3308.42 even after including the monthly interest on the compensation amount of Rs. 1.5 lacs. Since the monthly income of the family was less than 60% of last drawn gross salary of the deceased employee Sh. Ram Lal Sandhu, the appointment of Sh. - 4 - Parveen Kumar Sandhu on compassionate grounds cannot be termed as illegal or arbitrary. In view of above discussion, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed being devoid of merit. There shall be no order as to costs. . (Rajiv Sharma) Judge. February 25, 2008 *Awasthi*