CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.256 OF 2003 AJAY KUMAR BIHARI -----Appellant Versus THE VAISHALI KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK & ANR. -------Respondents ------------ For the petitioner : Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, Adv. Mr. Radha Mohan Verma, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Adv. ------------ P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD THE HON’BLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN Prasad & Ranjan : JJ This application has been filed for issuance of an appropriate writ for quashing the order dated 2.2.2001 (Annexure-4) whereby a prayer made by the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground has been rejected. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to issue writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint him on compassionate ground. Shorn of unnecessary details, facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner’s father Vivekanand Prasad was Clerk-Cum-Cashier in Chak Sikandar Branch of the Vaishali Kshetriya Gramin Bank, (hereinafter referred to as the Bank). By order dated 10th of July, 1992 he was put under suspension on the allegation of misutilisation of a sum of Rs. 89,000/- and subjected to a departmental proceeding. However, - 2 - before the departmental proceeding could be concluded, his father died on 9th of April, 1994. Petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground on 2.5.1994, but said prayer has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground that his father was involved in fraud/misappropriation for bank money. Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the ground assigned to deny the petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground, is absolutely illegal and as such the order impugned deserves to be set aside on this ground alone. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, appearing on behalf of the respondents, however, contends that gravity of charge levelled against deceased employee is a ground to deny the dependent appointment on compassionate ground. In this connection, our attention has been drawn to the circular dated 27th of February, 1996 of National Bank for Agricultural and Rural Development. Said circular, contains the following instruction. “The matter has since been reviewed by Govt. of India and it is considered appropriate if the RRBs concerned take view on their own, having regard to all the aspects including the gravity of the charges levelled against the deceased employee, the pecuniary circumstances of the family of the deceased and other relevant factors such as existence of an already earning member/s in the family or not etc.” Having appreciated the rival submission, we are of the opinion that the gravity of charge levelled against the deceased - 3 - employee is a relevant consideration but the same is not decisive. In our opinion, on consideration of the gravity of charge levelled and other circumstances relevant for appointment, the employer may or may not chose to appoint the person on compassionate ground. In the facts of the present case, we are of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to be appointed on compassionate ground. As stated earlier, petitioner’s father died on 9.4.1994 and his application for appointment on compassionate ground was rejected on 2.2.2001, he has chosen to file this writ application on 7.1.2003. It is well settled that compassionate appointment is granted to the dependent of the deceased to meet the immediate crisis which the family faces on account of sudden death of the bread-earner. The facts narrated above, do not justify petitioner’s appointment on compassionate ground. In the result, we do not find any merit in the application and it is dismissed accordingly but without any order as to costs. Patna High Court Dated, 18th Sept. 2008 NAFR/S.Ali (Chandramauli Kr. Prasad, J.) (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)