IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12943 of 2006 RANJEET KUMAR, son of Late Virendra Thakur, resident of Opposite Watson High School, Madhubani, P.O., P.S. & District Madhubani------------------------------petitioner Versus 1.The Managing Director, State Bank of India, Central Office, Mumbai 2.The Chief General Manager, State Bank of India, Local Head Office, West of Gandhi Maidan, Patna 3.The Deputy General Manager, State Bank of India, Poddar Complex, Jubbasahan Park, Muzaffarpur 4.The Assistant General Manager, State Bank of India, Regional Business Office, Darbhanga (Laheria Sarai) 5.The Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch Madhubani-----------------------------------Respondents ---- For the petitioner :M/S H.K.Thakur Indu Kumari Sinha,Advocates For the Bank :M/S Kaushlendra Kumar Sinha Sunil Kumar Singh,Advocates ----------- 2. 04.05.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State Bank of India. The petitioner seeks quashing of the Memo dated 3.2.2003 (Annexure-8) issued under the signature of Chief Manager, State Bank of India, Main Branch, Madhubani by which the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground in the State Bank of India has been disallowed by the competent authority on the ground of financial condition and further a direction is sought upon the authorities of the State Bank to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. 2 The petitioner claims such appointment on account of death of his father on 4.7.2000 while he was working in the State Bank. It is stated that the deceased employee left behind four dependents. The petitioner, one of his sons, applied for compassionate appointment, but the same has been rejected on the ground that the financial condition of the family is not penurious. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Bank the details of the calculation are given under which the income from family pension including DA has been shown Rs.7739/- and from 75% of the liquid surplus Rs.298/- taking the total monthly income to Rs.8037/-. It is also stated that after five years the same would become Rs.3012/-. It is further stated therein that the net take home salary of the deceased employee was Rs.6996/- and, thus, with the said income the family cannot be said to be indigent. Learned counsel for the State Bank has drawn my attention to a practically identical matter in the case of State Bank of India & Anr. Vs. Somvir Singh : 2007(2) PLJR 46 (SC) 3 in which the Supreme Court on the basis of the findings recorded by the authorities of the Bank that the income of the family in the said case from family pension was Rs.2214/- and income from agricultural land Rs.584/- held that it was sufficient for the Bank to come to the finding that the deceased employee had not been left in penury or without any means of livelihood. In the said decision I find that the Apex Court has set aside the decision of the High Court holding that it was for the competent authority to come to a conclusion in this regard and the Division Bench of the High Court could not have taken a decision by varying the existing scheme framed by the appellant-Bank. In view of the aforesaid proposition laid down by the Supreme Court, no case is made out for interference with the order of the respondent Bank in the present matter. The writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. (Ramesh Kumar Datta,J.) spal/