1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION No.4174/2002. : : Smt. Santosh Devi & Anr. Vs. State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur Anr. : : Date of Order 21.11.2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Mr.C.L.Saini for the petitioners. Mr.N.C.Goyal for the respondents. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the order dated 29.3.2001 whereby the respondents rejected the application of the petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment and with the prayer that the respondents be directed to give appointment to the petitioner No.2 on compassionate ground. According to the petitioner, late husband of the petitioner No.1 Late Shri Sadhu Ram, was appointed with State Bank of Bikaner & Jaipur while he was serving as Assistant Branch Manager died on 15.2.2000. The petitioner No.1 submitted an application to the respondent- Bank on 20.5.2000 requesting for compensatory appointment 2 for petitioner No.2 namely; Suresh Kumar Meena. The Branch Manager of the Bank eventually recommended the case of the petitioner No.2. The respondents finally rejected the application of the petitioner. 3. Shri C.L.Saini, learned counsel fro the petitioner argued that petitioner No.1 was suffering from acute Cirrohcis of Lever and that she had incurred heavy expenditure and her family was in financial crisis. The respondents however illegally declined to grant compassionate appointment. Learned counsel relied on judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Sharma Vs. Union of India & Ors : 2003 WLC (Raj.) UC 317, especially observations made in para No.7 of this judgment. 4. Shri N.C.Goyal, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that according to the scheme for compassionate appointment with respondent-Bank, the respondents are even entitled to consider the question whether the family of deceased employee is living in a state of financial crisis or whether the family has other means of livelihood and what is its financial 3 condition. In order to decide that question the factors like the amount of family pension, gratuity, employees provident fund, proceeds of LIC and other investments and income from other sources are taken to be considered, besides the fact is any other family members is in employment. It was found that gross salary of the deceased prior to death was Rs.17,055/- per month and after deduction he was getting a sum of Rs.12,315/- per month. The petitioner No.1 is getting approximately Rs.5,000/- per month as family pension and she also received total Rs.5,28,549/- after adjusting the dues. The outstanding liability Rs.1,50,000/- as shown by her cannot be accepted because no proof has been furnished. The amount aforesaid if invested would have fetched Rs.5,000/- per month as interest and thus ultimately, it cannot be said that the family living in the state of financial penury. In fact, the medical bills submitted by the petitioner was reimbursed. Learned counsel relied on the judgments of Supreme Court in Punjab National Bank & Ors. Vs. Ashwini Kumar Taneja : 2004 (7) SCC, 265, General Manager (D&PB) & Ors. Vs. Kunti Tiwary & Anr. : 2004 (7) SCC, 271, SBI & Ors. Vs. Jaspal Kaur : Civil Appeal No.409/2007 decided on 1.2.2007, Union Bank of India & Ors. Vs. M.T.Latheesh : Supreme Today Part 188-2006 (8), 524 and SBI & Anr. Vs. 4 Somvir Singh : Supreme Today Part 34-2007 (2), 336. 5. The Division Bench of this Court by which reliance has been placed by the petitioner in Suresh Kumar (supra) was a case in which the deceased was employee in the postal department. The judgment of Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur Vs. Steel Authority of India : 2000 SCC ( L&S), 767 was considered and it was held that retiral benefits cannot be taken into consideration for the purpose of compassionate appointment, but there are number of subsequent judgments, which hold that in order to decide whether family of the deceased employee is living in circumstances of penury, all these factors can also be looked into. All these judgments were analyzed and considered in details by Division Bench of this Court in Balwant Singh Vs. UOI & Ors. : 2007 (1) RLR Pg.1, of which I was a member. It was held as under :- “Discussion made above would clearly demonstrate that consistent approach of the law on the question of compassionate appointment has been that this is an exception to the general rule but nonetheless this exception cannot be taken as conferring any corresponding right on 5 the dependents of the deceased government servant to claim such appointment in every situation. This cannot become a perennial source of recruitment in preference to regular mode of recruitment wherein appointments are made by providing opportunity to all eligible candidates to compete against the available vacancies. Mere death of an employee does not by itself give rise to a right in favour of his dependents to claim compassionate employment. It is a mere concession out of benevolence and compassion by the employer extended in only appropriate and deserving cases where the dependents are faced with sudden crisis of survival. What are those appropriate and deserving cases, would have to be decided on the basis of rules and/or guidelines of the government/the employer and the law evolved by judicial pronouncements on the subject. Such an appointment is intended to be provided not only in deserving cases but also at the earliest opportune time. If a sufficiently long time period has elapsed between the date of death and request of the dependent to claim such appointment, that by itself may be a valid ground for refusing appointment on compassionate grounds. The government/the employer upon receipt of such request would be well within its right to consider the financial status of the family including the fact whether or not any other member of the family was already employed 6 elsewhere, their landed property and income derived therefrom, other sources of income, terminal benefits which have been received by the family, the amount of family pension as also the fact as to how many persons the deceased employee was supporting and other liabilities of the family. The Government/the employer would also be entitled to consider as to if by sudden departure of the breadwinner of the family, the dependents have been plunged into acute financial crisis so grave as to be not able to maintain themselves on their own which is what is called as indigent condition of the family. These and the other considerations of the like nature therefore play a significant role in the making of decision by the government/the employer to provide compassionate appointment to one of the members of the family so as to enable them to come out the sudden crisis caused by unexpected and immediate hardship.” 6. In view of the aforesaid discussion and number of judgments cited by the learned counsel for the respondents and considering the fact that now more than seven years have gone by since the date of death of the employee concerned no case for issuance of writ of mandamus is made out. 7 In the result, this writ petition is accordingly dismissed. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ)J. A.Arora/- Item No.39.