IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1075 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1638 of 2006 ====================================================== Shashikant Kumar, S/o Late R.P. Bhakta, R/o Village – Pindara, P.O. – Bhagwan Pur Hat, P.S. – Bhagwan Pur Hat, District – Saran (Chapra) .... .... Petitioner / Appellant Versus 1. The Bank of Baroda, represented by the General Manager, Mandvi, Baroda, Head Office – Suraj Plana, Sayaligunj, Baroda – 390005, 2. The General Manager, Mandvi, Baroda, Head Office – Suraj Plana, Sayaligunj, Baroda – 390005, 3. The Assistant General Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Bihar Region, 63/B Shri Krishnapuri, Patna – 800 001, 4. The Deputy Regional Manager, Bank of Baroda, Regional Office, Bihar Region, 63/B Shri Krishnapuri, Patna – 800 001, 5. The Senior Branch Manager, Bank of Baroda, Chapra Branch, District - Saran .... .... Respondents / Respondents. ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Udai Shankar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Dr. Anshuman, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 5 23-08-2011 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 11th April 2011 passed by the learned single judge in above CWJC No. 1638 of 2006. The appellant is the son of one R.P. Bhakta, an employee of the respondent - Bank of Baroda. The appellant’s father passed away on 24th January 2003 while in service of the Patna High Court LPA No.1075 of 2011 (5) dt.23-08-2011 2 / 3 2 Bank. Consequent to the death of his father, the appellant, a handicapped person, lodged a claim for compassionate employment on 24th September 2003. Pending his application, the then prevalent scheme for compassionate employment was replaced by another Scheme dated 10th March 2004. Clause 3 of the said Scheme specifically provides that the pending claims shall be considered in accordance with the provisions of the aforesaid new Scheme dated 10th March 2004. The appellant’s case also was considered in accordance with the 2004 Scheme. As the father of the appellant died at the age of 55 years, the appellant was informed that he was eligible for financial assistance alone and not to the compassionate employment. Keeping in view the aforesaid 2004 Scheme for compassionate employment prevalent in the respondent - Bank of Baroda, the appellant’s challenge to the refusal of compassionate employment has been rejected by the learned single Judge. Therefore, the present appeal. Learned Advocate Mr. Udai Shankar Singh has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that 33 years is the upper age limit for employment in the Bank. The appellant being a handicapped person was entitled to 10 years’ relaxation. Hence, the appellant is within the age limit for compassionate employment. He has further submitted that at the time of his application made on 24th September 2003, the 1998 Scheme for compassionate employment was prevalent. The appellant’s case, therefore, should have been considered in accordance with the 1998 Scheme and the appellant ought to have been offered compassionate employment. We see no substance in the submission made by Mr. Singh. The 2004 Scheme specifically provides that the pending claims for compassionate employment shall be considered Patna High Court LPA No.1075 of 2011 (5) dt.23-08-2011 3 / 3 3 in accordance with the provisions of the 2004 Scheme. Once the scheme has been expressly made retrospective / retroactive in operation, the same shall prevail. The appellant is, therefore, entitled to be considered for compassionate employment in accordance with the 2004 Scheme and not in accordance with the 1998 Scheme. As recorded hereinabove, under the 2004 Scheme, the appellant’s father having passed away at the age of 55 years, the appellant is not entitled to compassionate employment. Learned single Judge has rightly rejected the claim of the appellant. No case for interference is made out. The Appeal is dismissed in limine. Dilip. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)