C.M. No.261 of 2010 and -1- LPA No.101 of 2010 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No.261 of 2010 and LPA No.101 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.01.2010 Smt. Kitabo Devi ............Appellant Versus Union of India and others ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH -.- Present: Mr. R.S. Mamli, Advocate for the appellant. ALOK SINGH, J. C.M. No.261 of 2010 For the reasons mentioned, application is allowed and the delay of 247 days in filing the present appeal is condoned. LPA No.101 of 2010 (O&M) 1. The present L.P.A. is filed challenging the order dated 18.3.2009 passed by learned Single Judge, thereby C.M. No.261 of 2010 and -2- LPA No.101 of 2010 (O&M) declining to accept the request of the petitioner/appellant to give appointment to the son of the petitioner on compassionate ground. 2. The brief facts of the present case are that husband of the petitioner/appellant Late Sh. Suraj Bhan Ola was working in the Haryana Gramin Bank who died in harness on 19.3.2005. After the death of the husband of the petitioner/appellant, she applied for all the benefits including compassionate appointment/financial assistance under ex-gratia scheme. Request of the petitioner/appellant was turned down. Thereafter, petitioner/appellant filed a writ petition before this Court which was dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 18.3.2009. 3. We have heard learned Counsel for the appellant and perused the record. 4. While dismissing the writ petition, learned Single Judge has observed as under:- “Undisputedly, Shri Suraj Bhan Ola – husband of the petitioner was working as Class I Officer at Branch Office of the respondent Bank at Loharu. He expired on 19.3.2005, leaving behind his wife, one son and four daughters. Admittedly he was owning 51 Kanals 3 Marlas of well irrigated agricultural land in village Kushal Pura, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani. After his death, the said land has been inherited by Rakesh Kumar C.M. No.261 of 2010 and -3- LPA No.101 of 2010 (O&M) Ola, being the only son of the deceased and the same is under his self cultivation. It is also not disputed that after the death of Suraj Bhan Ola, an amount of R.8.76 lacs has been paid to his legal heirs as terminal benefits i.e. Gratuity, Contributory Provident Fund, Leave encashment, Group Insurance Scheme etc. In the written statement, filed on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3, it has been stated that the claim of the petitioner has been considered under the Scheme for Appointment of Dependents of Deceased Employees on Compassionate Grounds in Regional Rural Banks, which has been circulated by National Bank for Agriculture and Rural Development, Mumbai to all the regional Rural Banks. As per clause 3 of the said scheme, the appointment under the Scheme can be made in Clerical and Subordinate cadres only. Since the husband of the petitioner was working as Class I Officer in the respondent bank, therefore, the case of the petitioner for appointment of her son on compassionate ground is not covered by the said Scheme. Second, dependent of the deceased employee has got sufficient assets and is not in a penurious condition. Therefore, prayer of the petitioner to give the aforesaid appointment to her son was considered and declined.” C.M. No.261 of 2010 and -4- LPA No.101 of 2010 (O&M) 5. It is admitted fact that after the death of Suraj Bhan Ola, an amount of Rs.8.76 lacs was paid to his legal heirs as terminal benefits i.e. Gratuity, Contributory Provident Fund, Leave encashment, Group Insurance Scheme etc. It is also admitted fact that Late Sh. Suraj Bhan Ola, the husband of the petitioner/appellant was owing 51 Kanals 3 Marlas irrigated agricultural land in village Kushal Pura, Tehsil Loharu, District Bhiwani. 6. In view of the above, there is no reason to grant compassionate appointment to the son of the petitioner/appellant. We do not find any error in the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 7. For the reasons recorded above, the appeal being devoid of merit, must fail, and the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) 28.01.2010 JUDGE ashish