1 HARI KISHAN HARSHWAL & ANR. Vs. STATE BANK OF BIKANER & JAIPUR & ANR. (S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.5419/06) Date of Order :. 1.4.2009 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA Mr. R.S.Saluja, for the petitioners. Mr. P.K.Lohra, for the respondents. 1. In this writ petition, the petitioners are seeking directions against the respondents to consider the application of the second petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground and to provide appointment to him from the date he became entitled for the same. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioners' father Shri O.P. Harshwal was employed as Clerk cum Cashier in the respondent Bank. He died while in service on 11.6.02, leaving behind his wife Smt. Kiran Devi and the petitioners S/Shri Hari Kishan Harshwal and Sushil Kumar Harshwal. It is stated that in the writ petition that the second petitioner made an application to the Branch Manager, SBBJ, Branch Panchu seeking appointment on compassionate ground as dependent of the deceased employee. The application was forwarded by the Branch Manager concerned to the competent authority for appropriate action. However,no action was taken by the respondents on the said application as such once again, an 2 application was submitted on 21.7.03 in the prescribed format which was also forwarded by the Branch Manager, Panchu on the same date. Ultimately, the application preferred as aforesaid was rejected vide order dated 4.9.03 issued by the Branch Manager, Panchu, District-Bikaner. The application was rejected on the ground that it was not submitted within a period of one year from the death of the father of the petitioners and on the date of the application , the applicant was more than the maximum age limit prescribed for appointment on any post. It is submitted that after rejection of the application submitted by the first petitioner, the second petitioner who was of 27 years of age at the relevant time submitted an application in the prescribed format on 7.10.03 for considering his case for appointment on compassionate basis. However,the same was not considered though the petitioners repeatedly tried to persuade the authorities. It is submitted that vide communication dated 11.5.05, the Branch Manager, Panchu recommended for sympathetic consideration of the application , but to no avail. In these circumstances, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition for the relief as detailed supra. By way of amendment of the writ petition , petitioners have assailed the validity of order dated 4.9.03 as well. 3. In the reply and additional reply to the writ petition , the respondents have taken the stand that the letter (Annexure 1) 3 dated 31.10.02 refers to an application submitted by the first petitioner and not the second petitioner as claimed. It is submitted that the application for seeking appointment on compassionate ground filed by the first petitioner was rejected vide communication dated 4.9.03 and the reasons for rejection were clearly spelt out in the said communication, however, the validity of said order was not questioned by the petitioners in the writ petition originally filed and the validity thereof has been assailed only by way of amended writ petition filed in December,2008 i.e. after a lapse of more than four years. It is submitted that after rejection of the application of the first petitioner, original writ petition itself was filed by the petitioners after a lapse of about three years from the date of passing of the order impugned. It is submitted that there is no explanation much less plausible explanation for such inordinate delay and laches in challenging the order dated 4.9.03 therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on this ground alone. It is submitted that when the option was exercised by the first petitioner for seeking appointment on compassionate grounds and the same was declined by the respondents, the right available to the family of the deceased employee under the scheme governing the appointment on compassionate grounds stands exhausted and no further communication/application in this behalf is entertainable by the Bank administration. It is 4 submitted that the application submitted by the first petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment in the prescribed format was submitted after expiry of one year and consequently, the same was declined by the competent authority while adhering to the Scheme for Appointment of Deceased Employees /Employees Retired on Medical Grounds, on Compassionate Grounds, notified vide circular dated 11th March, 1997. That apart, the respondents have taken the stand that the conditions of bereaved family cannot be categorised as penurious inasmuch as, their monthly income can very well be treated as sufficient for survival of three family members of the deceased employee. 4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the first application by the first petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground was submitted in the year 2002 itself i.e. within one year from the death of the employee but ignoring this aspect of the matter, the respondent authorities have rejected the application on wholly erroneous assumption. It is submitted by the learned counsel that after rejection of the application preferred by the first petitioner, an application was preferred by the second petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground in terms of the Scheme introduced by the respondents and the same remained pending consideration therefore, it cannot be said that the writ petition suffers from vice of delay and laches. 5 It is submitted by the learned counsel that the second petitioner who was 27 years of age on the date of submitting the application, by no stretch of imagination can be termed to be over age. The learned counsel submitted that it is absolutely incorrect to state that the family is not in a penurious condition inasmuch as, it has outstanding loans to repay. The learned counsel submitted that on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the respondents are under an obligation to consider the application preferred by the second petitioner on merits sympathetically. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. It is submitted by the learned counsel that while considering a request for compassionate appointment, the financial condition of the bereaved family is a relevant consideration and after assessment of the overall income of the petitioners' family by way of pension and otherwise, the respondent authorities have rightly arrived at a conclusion that the condition of the bereaved family cannot be categorised as penurious. It is submitted by the learned counsel that even the first application filed on behalf of first petitioner in the prescribed format so also the application submitted by the second petitioner thereafter were barred by time. Lastly, it is submitted by the learned counsel that the petitioners' father had 6 expired in the year 2002 and the family of the deceased employee has survived for all these years on their own without any financial help from the respondent Bank therefore, at this belated stage, the request for appointment on compassionate ground is otherwise not entertainable and the writ petition deserves to be dismissed for this reason also. 6. I have considered the rival submissions and perused the record. 7. Indisputably, the Scheme for Appointment of Dependants of Deceased Employees on Compassionate Ground has been framed by the respondent Bank so as to extend immediate succor to the bereaved family of the deceased employee, who has died in harness. It is settled law that the appointment on compassionate ground, an exception carved out to the relevant recruitment Rules governing the public employment, to meet the particular contingency, cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The financial condition of the bereaved family is also a relevant aspect to be considered by the authorities while examining the claim of the dependants of the deceased employee for compassionate grounds. 8. In the matter of State of Haryana vs. Rani Devi, [1996(5) SCC,308], the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "it need not be pointed out that the claim of the person concerned for appointment on compassionate ground is based on premises that 7 he was dependent on deceased employee. Strictly, this claim cannot be upheld on the touchstone of Articles 14 or 16 of the Constitution. However, such claim is considered as reasonable and permissible on the basis of certain crisis occurring in the family of such employee who has served the State and dies while in service." 9. In the matter of 'Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs. State of Haryana',[1994(4)SCC138], Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that "The whole object of granting compassionate employment is thus to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis. The object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased. What is further, mere death of an employee in harness does not entitle his family to such source of livelihood. The Government or the public authority concerned has to examine the financial condition of the family of the deceased, and it is only if it is satisfied, that but for the provision of employment, the family will not be able to meet the crisis that a job is to be offered to the eligible member of the family." The Hon'ble Court further observed "the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crisis which it faces at the time of the death of 8 the sole breadwinner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over." 10. Adverting to the facts of the present case, it is to be noticed that the petitioners' father expired on 11.6.02 and thereafter, the first application in the prescribed format was submitted by the first petitioner on 21.7.03 i.e. after the lapse of one year from the death of his father. It is not in dispute that the application preferred by the second petitioner was also barred by time. The application preferred by the first petitioner was rejected by the competent authority vide order dated 4.9.03 however, while filing the original writ petition, the said order rejecting the application for compassionate ground was not challenged. The writ petition itself was filed after a period of about three years from the date of the rejection of the application of the first petitioner and the submission of the application by the second petitioner. There is no plausible explanation whatsoever set out in the writ petition explaining the inordinate delay in filing the writ petition. In this view of the matter, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches. 11. The appointments on compassionate ground are extended to provide immediate help to the bereaved family of the deceased employee to overcome the sudden financial crisis. The 9 father of petitioners had expired on 10.6.02 and the family of the deceased employee has survived for all these years without any such help being extended on compassionate ground therefore, after a lapse of about 7 years, when the crisis period is already over, granting benefit of appointment on compassionate ground at this stage shall be against the object and spirit of provisions of the Scheme governing such appointments. 12. That apart, having gone through the details furnished by the respondents regarding the financial condition of the family of deceased employee, this court is satsified that the bereaved family cannot be categorised as penurious. It is pertinent to note that presently, the widow of the deceased employee is getting pension a sum of Rs.7,021/- per month. A perusal of the Bank Account of the widow Smt. Kiran Devi Harshwal for the period 19.4.08 to 1.1.09, placed on record by the respondents as Annexure R/1 goes to show that the opening balance brought forward in the aforesaid pension bank account is Rs.1,35,222.64 and during the said period an amount of Rs.69,792.45 has been credited towards the monthly pension. It is pertinent to note that during the said period i.e. 19.4.08 to 1.1.09, only an amount of Rs. 15,550/- has been withdrawn and as on 1.1.09, there was a balance of Rs. 2,20,564/- in the said account. Thus, it is apparent that the family is not required even to withdraw the pension amount so as to meet its day to day expenses, 10 which leads to the presumption that family has other sources of income as well. In any case, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the finding arrived at by the respondents that the family of the deceased employee cannot be categorised as penurious , cannot be faulted with. 13. In view of the discussion above, in considered opinion of this court the respondents have committed no error in declining the appointment to the petitioners on compassionate ground. 14. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs. (SANGEET LODHA), J. aditya/-