Court No.2 IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL. Writ Petition (S/S) No.1065 of 2003 Smt.Deepa Tewari ……. Petitioner Versus Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Department of Economic Affairs (Banking Division), Government of India, New Delhi and others. ……. Respondents ………………….. Sri Manoj Tiwari, learned counsel for the petitioner. Smt Anjali Bhargava,learned Counsel for Union of India /respondent No.1 Sri Ashish Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4. Date: May 14, 2008. Hon’ble P.C.Verma,J. This petition has been filed by the petitioner for the following relief:- (A) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature or certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 29.07.2003 (Annexure-7) passed by respondent No.2. (B) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent No.2 to grant compassionate appointment to the petitioner on the post of Clerk cum Cashier in the light of the recommendation made by the respondent No.3 vide letter dated 04.06.1977. (C) To declare the artificial classification made by the respondent Bank between dependants of 2 employees against whom disciplinary proceedings were pending or contemplated vis a vis others as arbitrary and illegal. (D) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent No.2 from subjecting the dependants of employees against whom disciplinary proceedings were pending or contemplated, to any hostile discrimination in the matter of grant of compassionate appointment. (E) To issue any other suitable writ, order or direction as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. (F) To award the cost of the writ petition in favour of the petitioner. 2. The facts, in brief, of the writ petition are that the petitioner’s husband late Sri Manoj Tewari was employed as Clerk–cum-Cashier in Nanakmatta Branch of State Bank of India. He met with a road accident and died on 03.02.1996. At the time of death late Sri Manoj Tewari was only 24-year-old. He is survived by his wife and a minor daughter. There is no other source of income available to the petitioner and the meager amount paid as family pension is not sufficient even to meet the expenses of education of her daughter. The petitioner is a Science Graduate and has done post graduation in Economics also and as such she possesses the eligibility condition for appointment as Clerk-cum-Cashier in the State Bank of India. After the death of her husband the petitioner submitted application on 20.02.1996 claiming 3 compassionate appointment. The respondent No.3 forwarded the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment alongwith his strong recommendation to the respondent No.2 on 04.06.1997. On 16.03.1998 the respondent No.2 informed the respondent No.3 that the Government of India has declined the proposal for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. The respondent No.2 informed the petitioner on 16.06.1999 that her claim was reviewed by the Central Government and the Central Government has informed the Bank that it is unable to agree to the proposal submitted by the Bank for compassionate appointment of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner filed writ petition bearing No.51083 of 1999 before Allahabad High Court challenging the order passed by the Government of India rejecting petitioner’s claim. The said writ petition was transferred to this Court and it was re-numbered as Writ Petition No. 584 (S/S) of 2001. On 12.06.2003 this Court allowed the writ petition and the respondent was directed to decide the case of petitioner afresh in view of the observations made in the judgment. The petitioner served the certified copy of the judgment to the respondents. Thereafter the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dated 29.07.2003 whereby the petitioner’s claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected only on the ground that policy regarding compassionate appointment to the dependants of employees of the Bank has been revised by the Central Board of the Bank in its meeting dated 24.1.2003. Aggrieved by the order dated 29.07.2003 the petitioner has again came up with the present writ petition. 4 3. It has been stated by the respondents in the counter affidavit that a departmental enquiry was conducted against the husband of the petitioner late Sri Manoj Tewari in respect of certain frauds committed by him in which he was found guilty and punishment for misconduct was imposed upon by the disciplinary authority. It is also contended by the respondents that on 03.02.1996 when Sri Manoj Tewari expired, he was still under going the rigour of punishment, hence the petitioner could not have been appointed unless and until the approval was obtained from the Central Government as mentioned in clause 6(d) of the Scheme of Bank for appointment on compassionate grounds for dependents of deceased employees. Thereafter the revised scheme of the Bank was prepared by its Central Board on 24.01.2003 and as per clause 5(f) of the revised scheme the petitioner is not chosen to be considered and the petitioner’s case has been rejected as per clause 5(f) of the revised scheme. 4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. It is not disputed that the petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment was strongly recommended by the respondent No.3 on 04.06.1997 for consideration by respondent No.2. The petitioner’s husband late Sri Manoj Tewari was reinstated in service after imposition of penalty and no proceeding was pending against him. The rejection of the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment only on the ground that the Bank’s policy has been changed, is illegal. The record shows that the petitioner’s claim was pending since 20.02.1996. The 5 subsequent amendment will not apply as the petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment when the old policy was in force and she was duly eligible to be considered and appointed. The vested right of the petitioner under the policy then existing cannot be taken away by any subsequent revision in the policy or else it would amount to giving retrospective effect to the revised policy formulated in the year 2003. The petitioner has also alleged that she is being subjected to a hostile discrimination. In reply to this, the explanation of the Bank in the counter affidavit is also not satisfactory. No doubt the petitioner died in harness leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. The object underlying a provision for grant of compassionate appointment is to enable the family of the deceased employee to tide over the sudden crisis resulting due to death of the bread earner which has left the family in penury and without any means of livelihood. 6. In view of above observation, the respondent No.1 is directed to re-consider the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment according to the policy prevailing at the time of petitioner’s application for compassionate appointment within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (P.C.Verma,J.) 14.05.2008 P.Singh 6