Es%%ii»y»";ss^fwOT":';^^K;:K^^ •7 ^:/]ff IN TBE BIOa.COURT ®:JODlGATGaE AT JABAUPBa .B.E. IT ESTiTION Nd3^"_^.^._ QF ' 1 999. pETiTiaiea aESPOamNTa fieTITIOi UHQEa AaiICLE 226/227.CF •IHE CONSTI'IHTION QF IBBIA* SANDEEP fiWQey, s/o LATE aaai paABHt?: , PANDfiy, aged 24 years, aesicleat af Beuse No.17, State Bank Colwiy, Sunder Sagai» aaipur,_K.P. l!!jl VEagBS 1. STATE BANK W IHDIA, a Body Coiporate, Constitated taiader the. State Bank of Indig Act, .1955, thfilough Cbai-caan Cent.Tal ©ffice, Na.ciaaa Poxnt, Madame Casa S°ad, HUBBAI. 2. TOE •aESia.l.AI. MANAGEa, Sfate Bank of India, aegional Offic^, Shaa.ka-c Nagar> a&ipya,M.p. ; • 3.TOE BaAECH NANASEa, , State Bgn.k of India? Bianch Neora Bistrict aaipur.,M.t», ©ETAlt^©FPETITION s M |]iil|[ritl|l:i|[| !|!rr ^^ /'• -f /'' J ^^'- ';'J> '!D HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRJT PETITION No. 3569 of 1999 PETITIONER : Sandeep Pandey. VERSUS . RESPONDENTS : State Bank ofIndia & Others. PETITIQN UNDER ARTICLE226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate with Shri Vamn Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri P.R.Patankar, Advocate for the respondents. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 11th day of March, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a writ in the natm-e of direction to the respondent-Bank to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner. 2. The indisputable facts, in nutshell are that the father of the petitioner naiiiely Prabhu Shankar Pandey, while working as Cashier with the respondent-Bank, died in harness on 17.03.1997. Late Prabhu Shankar Pandey left behind his wife, fwo daughters and the petitioner. The petitioner made an application for grant of compassionate appointment on 3.4.1997. After completing the formalities, the petitioner was called for personal interview on 14.7.1997. The petitioner appeared in the interview. When the petitioner did not receive any appointment order, . the petitioner contacted the respondent-Bank wherein it was informed to the petitioner that a complaint was received from one Dinanat Sharma about the character ofthe petitioner. 3. Shri Sharma, leamed counsel appeariag for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has completed all formalities and even the petitioner was ^x^ ^ ^,....<< -fiy•/' found fit for grant of compassionate appointment. Only on a complaint made by the neighbor, flie petitioner has been deprived of compassionate appomtment. Per contra, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent-Bank submits that the complaint made by the neighbour of the petitioner had nothing to do with the grant of compassionate appointment as the said complaint was never taken into consideration. The petitioner has not disclosed the assets acquired by the family which was sufficient enough to sustain the family members. Further, the dependent family was given provident fund and gratuity amounting to Rs. 4,24,000/- and the widow was further getting pension of Rs. 5000/- per month. Thus, taking into consideration fhe said factors, the petitioner was denied grant of compassionate appointment as the income and eaming of the dependent family was sufficient enough for their livelihood. I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. The claim of the-petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has rightly been rejected on the grouad that the dependent family members had enough source of income for their livelihood as the sole purpose of compassionate appoinfment is to provide immediate relief and succor to the family in distress as under the scheme of the respondent-Bank for grant of compassionate appointment, itis provided that ifthe dependent 'family members have sufficient source of income to maintain themselves, compassionate appointment may not be granted. Further, the allegation that the petitioner was denied compassionate appointment on the ground that some complaint made was by the neighbour regarding the character of the petitioner, is misconceive.d as the said ^^S..T,^.._ ^•i":';YS^ .^-?V-^S;. ^~^.^:^-i complaint was never taken into consideration while rejecting the claim ofthe petitioner. 7. Further, it is well settled principle of law that appointment on compassionate ground is not a method of recmitment, but is a facility to provide for immediate rehabilitation of the family in distress for relieving the dependent family members ofthe deceased employee from destitution. In other words, the object of compassionate appointment is to enable penurious family to tide over the sudden financial crisis and is not to provide employment. (See : Haryana State Electricity Board and another v. Hakim Singh1, State ofManipur v. Md. Rajaodin, and State ofJ & Kandothers v. Sajad Ahmed Mir ). 8. The deceased, Prabhu Shankar Pandey died on 17.03.1997. Thereafter, the petitioner and the other family members have sustained themselves till date for more than 13 years. Thus, the very purpose of grant of compassionate appointment does not survive at this stage. 9. Applying the well settled principle oflaw to the facts ofthe case and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition, warranting interference. 10. The petition fails and'is accordingly dismissed at the motion stage itseif. Sd/- SatishK. Agnihotri Judge Amit