IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12567 of 2005 SIKANDAR KUMAR SINGH,SIKANDAR KUMAR SINGH, S/O LATE RAM DAS SINGH, R/O VILLAGE- MACHHAGORA, P.S.BARIARPUR, CHAPRA, DISTRICT-SARAN, CHAPRA. ……………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK THROUGH ITS GENERAL MANAGER, CENTRAL OFFICE, CHANNAI. 2.THE MANAGER, INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, RAXAUL, DISTRICT-MOTIHARI. …………………RESPONDENTS. For the petitioner: None. For the Respondent Bank: Mr. Subash Prasad Singh,Advocate and Mr. Sanjiv Kr. Adv. ----------- 03/ 28.03.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the Indian Overseas Bank is present. Prayer of the petitioner in this writ application is for issuance of direction to the bank and its officials for appointing him on compassionate ground. From the pleadings in the writ application, it becomes clear that the father of the petitioner, permanent employee of the bank had died on 04.01.2001, after serving the bank for more than 23 years. The claim of the petitioner having been rejected on 07.01.2002, the petitioner had filed the present writ application on 29.09.2005, and the only plea to be noticed is that the 2 family had averments made in the writ application is that the family of the deceased employee has still liability of two unmarried daughters apart from the widow, the mother of the petitioner and the dependent son. In the counter affidavit, which was filed after serving a copy to the counsel for the petitioner dated 06.08.2007, it has been stated that the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was considered and was rejected on an over all analysis that the financial condition of the family was quite satisfactory and that the family did not need such compassionate appointment. In this context, the respondent bank in paragraph no. -3 have taken the following stand:- “That father of the petitioner namely Ram Das Singh was employed as armed guard at Raxaul Branch of Indian Overseas Bank within jurisdiction of its Regional Office Patna of Indian Overseas Bank, who died on 04.01.2001. His last monthly salary was Rs. 7749.30. The petitioner Sri Sikandar Kumar 3 Singh, submitted his application for compassionate appointment on 22.02.2001. As per the policy guideline approved by our Bank compassionate appointment can be considered for a dependant of a deceased employee if the monthly income of the bereaved family is less then 60% of the last drawn salary of the deceased. However, the monthly income of the deceased’s family was more than 60% of the last drawn of the salary of the deceased, hence this application for compassionate appointment was declined by the Bank on 07.01.2002. The assets left by the said deceased employee-Ram Das Singh, which came in hands of his family were as follows:- (i) Provident Fund Rs. 74,721.00 (ii) Gratuity Rs. 98,612.00 (iii) Compassionate Gratuity Rs. 8220.00 (iv) Group Insurance Rs.20,000.00 Rs.2,20,483.00 The financial condition and monthly income of the family of the said deceased-Ram Das Singh were as follows:- (i) Monthly income at 10% Rs. P.R.P interest per annum of the said assets- Rs. 2,20,483.00- Rs. 1837.00 (ii) Family pension Rs. 3321.00 Total- Rs. 5158.00 4 The 60% of the last salary drawn Rs. 7749.30 comes to Rs. 4649.58 per month. Thus the monthly income of the deceased family being Rs. 5158.00 is much more than 60% of the said last salary drawn of Rs. 7749.30. Apart from the said monthly income of Rs. 5158.00, the mother of the petitioner is getting D.A. Rs. 1212/- per month from 04.01.2003 and thus total and monthly income is Rs. 6370/-. Hence, the application of the petitioner for compassionate appointment was declined as per above. Accordingly the letter for declination was sent to the petitioner-Sri Sikendra Kumar Singh. Let it be noted that there is no rejoinder to the aforementioned counter affidavit and therefore, the facts pleaded by the bank in the counter affidavit will have to be treated as uncontroverted. From the pleadings on record, it is thus clear that the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was considered and the respondents came to a conclusion that whatever payment was made to the family of the deceased employee, in 5 addition to the monthly family pension was quite sufficient for maintenance of the family, while also taking the last take home salary of the deceased employee dying in harness. The concept of appointment on compassionate ground has been gone into by the Apex Court and in a large number of cases, wherein, it has been held that the appointment on compassionate ground cannot be claimed as a matter of right. The Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal vs State of Haryana reported in 1994 (4) SCC 138, has in fact gone to hold that unless the condition of the family is one of being in penury, the employer is not required to make appointment on compassionate ground. Further in the case of Kunti Devi vs State Bank Of India reported in 2004(7) SCC 265 the Apex Court, in a case arising out of this very Court had gone to hold that the assessment made by the authorities, of the assets and liabilities of the deceased employee, by itself can be a safe parameter for taking a decision for rejecting appointment on compassionate ground. 6 Thus, judged, in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court and the uncontroverted stand of the bank that the family of the petitioner has sufficient means for its subsistence, the decision taken by the bank cannot be faulted either on facts or in law. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)