COURT NO.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition (S/B) 1299/2002 Savitri Devi …….Petitioner Versus The Regional Manager, State Bank of India & Others ……Respondents Sri Ramji Srivastava, learned Counsel for the petitioner. Sri Ashish Joshi, learned Counsel for the respondents. 4th April, 2008 Hon’ble P.C. Verma, J. By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 11.9.2000, which is contained as Annexure No. 3 to the writ petition, whereby the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was rejected by the respondent Bank. 2. The husband of the petitioner late Sri Pratap Singh Nitwal, who was appointed as a Clerk in the year 1980 in State Bank of India, died on 1.1.2000 while in service on account of illness. After the death of her husband the petitioner moved an application to the respondent no. 2 for appointment on compassionate ground. The said application of the petitioner, after taking into consideration her financial condition and liabilities, was rejected by the respondent Bank by the impugned order dated 11.9.2000. 3. I have considered the rival submissions and have gone through the record. 4. There is a scheme framed by the respondent Bank for appointment on compassionate ground for the dependents of the deceased employee and as per this scheme, the financial condition of the family is an important criterion to be taken into consideration while deciding any proposal for compassionate appointment. While making assessment of the financial condition of the family, the following factors are required to be taken into consideration: (i) Family pension; (ii) Gratuity amount received; (iii) Employee’s/employer’s contribution to Provident Fund; (iv) Any compensation paid by the Bank or its welfare fund; (v) Proceeds of the LIC Policies and other investments of the deceased employee; (vi) Income of family from other sources; (vii) Income of other family members from employment, or otherwise; (viii) Size of the family and liabilities, if any. 5. There is no dispute whatsoever that the respondent Bank is required to consider the request for compassionate appointment only in accordance with the scheme framed by it for this purpose and no discretion as such is left with any of the authorities to make compassionate appointment dehors the scheme. Therefore, the claim of compassionate appointment and the right, if any, is traceable only to the scheme, executive instructions, rules, etc. framed by the employer in the matter of providing employment on compassionate grounds. 6. Undisputedly, the request of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was considered by the respondent Bank and while making the assessment of the financial condition of the family, the respondent Bank had taken into consideration each and every factor envisaged under the scheme for this purpose and calculated the monthly income as under: Provident Fund Rs. 2,70,000/- Gratuity Rs. 1,38,000/- Leave Encashment Rs. 9,000/- Mutual Welfare Scheme Rs. 10,000/- National Savings Certificate Rs. 1,35,000/- LIC Claim Rs. 1,51,000/- Total : Rs. 7,13,000/- Less Liabilities towards Bank Rs. 23,000/- Total amount received : Rs. 6,90,000/- Intt. @9% Rs. 6,90,000 X 9 12 X 100 = Rs. 5,175/- p.m. Intt. Income from investment Rs. 5,175/- p.m. Family pension Rs. 1,804/- p.m. Relief from Employees Welfare Rs. 250/- p.m. Total income per month : Rs. 7,229/- 7. As is evident, the respondent Bank after assessing the financial condition found that the dependents of the deceased employee are not in penury or without any means of livelihood and accordingly rejected the claim of compassionate appointment. 8. So far as legal position in this regard is concerned, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138 has held as under: “As a rule, appointments in public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appointment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule which is to be followed strictly in every case, there are some exceptions carved out in the interests of justice and to meet certain contingencies. One such exception is in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependants of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. 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.” (emphasis added) 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in State Bank of India and Another v. Somvir Singh reported in (2007) 4 SCC 778 has observed that dependants of employees died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, by the employer. The relevant observation made by the Supreme Court in the above authority is reproduced as under: “Article 16(1) of the Constitution of India guarantees to all its citizens equality of opportunity in matters relating to employment or appointment to any office under the State. Article 16(2) protects citizens against discrimination in respect of any employment or office under the State on grounds only of religion, race, caste, sex and decent. It is so well settled and needs no restatement at our end that appointment on compassionate grounds is an exception carved out to the general rule that recruitment to public services is to be made in a transparent and accountable manner providing opportunity to all eligible persons to compete and participate in the selection process. Such appointments are required to be made on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. Dependents of employees died in harness do not have any special or additional claim to public services other than the one conferred, if any, by the employer.” 10. The respondent Bank had considered the matter of compassionate appointment in respect of the petitioner as per its scheme and I do not find that the decision- making process is vitiated. The order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment is in conformity with scheme framed by the respondent Bank for this purpose. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that one Smt. Usha Agrawal whose husband died after the petitioner’s husband has been appointed on the compassionate ground and, therefore, petitioner is also entitled for the same. The submission of the learned Counsel is without any substance as it is very much clear from the aforesaid discussion that every claim for compassionate appointment has to be considered as per the scheme and thereafter eligibility for the same can be ascertained. Financial condition of one family can be different from the other and, therefore, in the matter of appointment on the compassionate ground, parity could not be claimed by the petitioner as the facts and circumstances of each and every case are different. 12. For the reasons recorded above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed accordingly. There shall be no order as to costs. (P.C. Verma, J.) Prabodh