SBCWP NO.1910/97. 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.1910/1997. Smt.Santra Devi Versus U.Co. Bank & Anr. Date of Order:- March 16, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Dr. Narain Dutt for the petitioner. Shri C.P. Sharma for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT:- This writ petition has been filed by the widow of employee of the respondent UCO Bank. Her husband late Shri Lalluram Balai was working with the respondent-UCO Bank as LDC. While working with the respondents, he unfortunately expired on 18/2/1995. At that time, he was under suspension. Petitioner submitted an application for giving her compassionate appointment which the respondents have policy to make appointment on compassionate ground. Respondents have declined to grant her appointment on the premise that her late husband did not have a clean service record and therefore she was not entitled to claim appointment on compassionate ground. 2) Dr.Narain Dutt, learned counsel for petitioner has argued that her late husband was SBCWP NO.1910/97. 2 subjected to departmental proceeding on a patty matter and was placed under suspension but before concluding the departmental proceedings, unfortunately he died. Appointment was denied on the ground that her late husband was facing departmental proceeding therefore the same could not be granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that petitioner cannot be classified in that category on artificial classification in that, one cadre of widow of such employees who though may have been died while serving the respondents but were not facing the departmental proceedings and other who while serving the respondents were facing the departmental proceedings. Such a classification cannot be held to be a reasonable classification and would be hit by right to equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submitted that the respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment on the post of Class-IV employee on her own merit ignoring the pendency of the departmental proceedings against her late husband. Mere pendency of the departmental enquiry does not mean that late husband of the petitioner was held guilty and it would be equally possible that he would have been exonerated in the departmental proceedings. SBCWP NO.1910/97. 3 3) Shri C.P. Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the writ petition and submitted that there is policy of the Government of India that in such cases where employees of the banks are facing departmental proceedings, their cases shall be forwarded to them for deciding whether or not they are dependants of the deceased and be provided compassionate appointment. Learned counsel submitted with regard to another communication dated 9/1/2001 sent to the petitioner conveying that the Government of India has not given any concurrence for appointment of the petitioner on compassionate ground. Learned counsel submitted that similar communication was sent to the petitioner on 28/9/1996. Since the Government of India was not party to the present writ petition therefore writ petition be dismissed. 4) Upon considering the rival submissions of the parties and perusing the documents on record, I find that it is indeed surprising how the widows of deceased government servants can be distinguished and treated dissimilar by the respondents-employer when its officials themselves shown that they fell in the same category whose husbands died while serving the respondents. There was relationship of master & servant between the respondents and late husband of the petitioner. Mere pendency of departmental enquiry does not SBCWP NO.1910/97. 4 make widow of a government servant of this nature in any manner different than the widow of an employee whose husband is not facing such departmental enquiry. Such a classification cannot be termed as a reasonable classification and shall be hit by right to equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Relevant consideration for grant of compassionate appointment would be to see whether sole bread earner of the family suddenly died leaving his family members in financial crises. Application of the petitioner has not been denied on that ground. She has been refused only on consideration of fact that her late husband was not having clean service record. Respondents have not spelled out as to what is meant by the words 'clear service record'. They have simply stated that late husband of the petitioner owing to the latches on his part, caused a loss of Rs.4450.90 to the bank theretofore departmental proceedings were initiated against him. Other dues of the petitioner have been paid. It is alleged that two charge-sheets were pending against deceased husband of the petitioner, one pertaining for the year 1993 and another pertaining to the year 1995 but none of the departmental proceedings thereof were concluded before unfortunately he died on 18/2/1995. Respondents themselves have not concluded the departmental proceedings in the SBCWP NO.1910/97. 5 aforesaid charge-sheets for four years. In any case, the considerations for grant of compassionate appointment are entirely different where as per welfare scheme of the employer, what has to be appreciated is the resultant condition in which family is placed on account of sudden death of its sole bread earner. The action of the respondents in refusing to consider case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment on those considerations cannot be held to be legal and justified. 5) In the result, writ petition is allowed. Impugned-order dated 2/8/1996 (Ann.8) and subsequent orders sent to the petitioner on 9/1/2001 (Ann.R/1-2/6) and 28/9/1996 (Ann.R/1-2/7) are quashed and set-aside. Respondents are directed to consider case of the petitioner in terms of their policy for providing compassionate appointment to the widow of the deceased employee on the post of Class-IV. 6) Compliance of the judgment shall be made within a period of three months from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. anil