IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5827 of 2005 DHARMSHILA KUMARI SINHA, wife of Late A. K. Sinha Azad, resident of B/61, Housing Colony, Kankarbagh, P.S. Kankarbagh, District- Patna. … Petitioner. Versus 1. THE PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK through its Managing Director 7, Bikajee Kama Place, New Delhi. 2. The Managing Director, Punjab National Bank, 7, Bikajee Kama Place, New Delhi. 3. Zonal Manager, Punjab National Bank, Patna Zone, Patna. 4. Manager (HRD), H.R.D. Department Integrated Zonal Office, Punjab National Bank., Patna. 5. Senior Manager (HRD), Selection, Punjab National Bank, S.R.M.O., Patna. 6. Senior Regional Manager Patna „A‟ Punjab National Bank, Patna. … Respondents. ----------- 8. 28.03.2011 Heard the learned counsel for the parties. By order dated 2.8.2005 reading as follows:- “Let a further counter affidavit be filed by the Bank stating whether an appointment has been given to Niraj Sinha son of late Sita Ram Prasad, who was a General Manager of the Respondent Bank and if so, what was the financial status of the family of late Sita Ram Prasad after his death, as was considered by the Bank, if such appointment had been given after coming into force of the scheme dated 28th March, 1997. If the appointment of Niraj Sinha was given before coming into force of the said scheme, the Bank need not file an affidavit for the statement to that effect of the counsel of the Bank will suffice. This inquiry is not necessary for in the writ petition, the date of appointment of Niraj Sinha has not been furnished at all. However, in order to give confidence to the petitioner that the Bank has not discriminated the petitioner, I am making an effort to ascertain the facts as directed above. It would 2 not be appropriate to indulge in a wild goose chase in respect of other persons named in paragraph -30 of the writ petition for in respect of those too it has not been stated as to when such appointments had been given, if at all. Let the matter be adjourned for two weeks.” this Court had made almost clear that the petitioner does not have any case for the solitary relief sought in this writ petition as with regard to her appointment on compassionate ground but then it had directed the respondents to file a supplementary counter- affidavit to clarify certain aspect relating to alleged discrimination as against the petitioner vis-à-vis Niraj Sinha. Pursuant thereto, in the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents following stand has been taken:- “4. That before providing appointment to Neeraj Sinha on compassionate ground, the authorities of the respondent Bank, in accordance with the Scheme, had taken into consideration the Financial condition of the family and size of the family and liabilities etc. 5. That while considering the appointment of Neeraj Sinha, the authorities of the Bank had taken into consideration that at the time of death of his father, Sita Ram Prasad, he had left behind four dependents, that is widow, one son and two daughters and the family had received a sum of Rs.6.53 lacs only as terminal dues and since late Sita Ram Prasad had not 3 opted for pension, the family was not in receipt of pensioary benefit whereas in case of the petitioner, her husband had died leaving behind three dependents only, that is, widow, one son and one daughter and the family of the petitioner had received Rs.8.88 lacs as terminal benefits and in addition to that, the family of the petitioner is also getting family pension of Rs.5,187/- per month.” In the rejoinder affidavit, the aforesaid factual aspect has not been controverted by the petitioner and all that has been said by him in this regard is that there was some difference in payment of amount of terminal benefit and on the basis of the same, if a person receiving higher amount of terminal benefit was appointed, the petitioner ought not to have been left out on that ground. Mr. Prashant Ved Sen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank however has also pointed out that the statements made by the petitioner in the rejoinder affidavit have been sufficiently explained in yet another reply filed by the Bank explaining that there was no discrimination or any favour shown to Niraj Sinha in his appointment on compassionate ground. In the considered opinion, the aspect which will be really relevant to decide as with regard to the claim 4 for appointment on compassionate ground would be the financial condition of the family at the time of death of the deceased employee. Way back in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in 1994 AIR SCW 2305 it has been held by Apex Court that compassionate appointment cannot be claimed as a matter of right and that if the condition of family is not in penury, the dependent of the deceased employee cannot claim such appointment only by way of his hereditary right. Admittedly, this Court even on earlier occasion in the order dated 2.8.2005 had found the petitioner not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground. Thus now when this Court would find that there are sufficient explanation for appointment of Niraj Sinha, it must come to the conclusion that the allegation of discrimination by the petitioner has also got no merit. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)