IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU WRIT PETITION No.5380 of 2003 Between: Mohd. Sultan Pasha, S/o. Mohd Osman, R/o. H.No. 2-5-80. Nalla Pochamma Wada, Peddapalli (M) , Karimnagar District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 State Bank of Hyderabad., Rep. by its Chief General Manager, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad., 2 Chief Manager (Personnel) Administration Department, State Bank of Hydrabad., Hyderabad., 3 The Asst. General Manager, State Bank of Hydrabad., Regional Office, Tukaram Complex, Ambedkar Road, Karimnger District., 4 The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hydrabad., Peddapalli Main Branch, Karimnger District., ....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus, or any other appropriate Writ, order or direction, declaring the proceeding No. F/5/265 dt.11.2.2003 issued by the 4th respondent as being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Art., 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India and set aside the same. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.GANTA RAMAKRISHNA Counsel for Respondent: MR.ADDEPALLI SURYANARAYANA The Court made the following : ORAL ORDER: This Writ Petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the Proceedings in letter No.F/5/265, dated 11-2-2003 issued by the 4th respondent as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. The facts are not much in dispute. Petitioner’s father - late Mohd.Osman, who was working as Head Watchman in the 4th respondent-Bank under the control of the 1st respondent died, in harness on 16-8-1999. Petitioner immediately i.e. on 23-12-1999 made an application seeking compassionate appointment due to death of his father. The said application was returned on 5-1-2000 on the ground that it was not in prescribed format. Thereafter, on 12-7-2000, petitioner submitted another application in the prescribed proforma. That was done within one year from the date of death of his father. However, when his case was not considered, he filed a Writ Petition being W.P.No.24803 of 2002, which was disposed of on 16-12-2002 directing the respondents to consider and dispose of the application dated 12-7- 2000 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said Order. In pursuance of the said direction, the case of the petitioner, though was considered, was rejected through the impugned letter dated 11- 2-2003 stating that the application for appointment on compassionate grounds can be considered within a reasonable period and as there was considerable delay in applying, the same cannot be considered as the crisis period was over. Further, the application of the petitioner was received by the competent authority on 17-1-2001 after lapse of 17 months from the date of demise of the employee. Except this, no other reason was furnished for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Therefore, this Writ Petition. A detailed counter is filed by the 4th respondent admitting that the father of the petitioner died on 16-8-1999 and the petitioner submitted an application for compassionate appointment, which was not in prescribed proforma and as such, the same was returned. Later, the petitioner submitted an application on 12-7-2000 to the 4th respondent, who is not competent authority to consider the same. However, the said application was forwarded to the competent authority through Regional Office and the same was received by the competent authority on 17-1-2001. It is also stated that the petitioner, who has not submitted application to the competent authority, cannot find fault with the respondents. Further, the assets of the deceased employee are more than the liabilities and since the widow was drawing family pension of Rs.2,928.89 ps per month, it was felt that there is no destitute status for the family of the deceased. It is the case of the petitioner that the first application for compassionate appointment was made by him on 23-12-1999 and that was returned on 5-1-2000. He has collected all the papers and submitted the application in the prescribed proforma on 12-7-2000 before the 4th respondent. But, even according to the counter of the 4th respondent, he submitted the same to the competent authority on 17-1-2001. That itself does not mean that the petitioner has not made application within time and there was lapse on his part. The facts would indicate that within four months from the date of death of his father, the petitioner made an application and that was returned on 5-1- 2000 and again he resubmitted the same in proper format before the 4th respondent on 12-7-2000. Therefore, the application of the petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground of delay etc. The other reason furnished saying that the application for appointment on compassionate grounds cannot be considered as the crisis period was over is not tenable. I have given my earnest consideration to the respective submissions made by the learned counsel on either side and perused the impugned Order and other material made available on record. Admittedly, the father of the petitioner expired on 16-8-1999 while working as Head Watchman in the respondent-Bank. It is not in dispute that a scheme for compassionate appointment was available with the respondent-Bank and the application of the petitioner was rejected only on the grounds, which were noticed above. However, learned counsel for the respondent-Sri Addepalli Suryanarayana strenuously contended that by the time the application reached the competent authority, the crisis period was over and further the mother of the petitioner was paid all the terminal benefits and also pension; therefore, there was no crisis in the family; as such, the case of the petitioner was rightly rejected, since it does not fit into the teeth of the scheme. I am not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, in this regard. Neither there was any delay nor there is any evidence to show that there was no financial crisis in the family of the petitioner. Mere payment of terminal benefits and pension to the mother of the petitioner would not automatically disentitle the petitioner from claiming compassionate appointment. Further, learned counsel for the respondents stated that considering appointment at this length of time would obliviate the very scheme and its object. In this regard, learned counsel relied upon the decisions reported in STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR v. SAJAD AHMED MIR[1], UNION BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. M.T. LATHEESH[2] a n d STATE BANK OF INDIA AND OTHERS v. JASPAL KAUR[3]. In SAJAD AHMED MIR’s case (1 supra), it was held that once it is proved that in spite of death of the breadwinner, the family survived and substantial period is over, there is no need to make appointment on compassionate ground at the cost of the interest of several others ignoring the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. In the said case, the application for compassionate appointment was made after 4½ years of death of the father of respondent therein. But, in this case, the application was made immediately after the death of the breadwinner i.e. within four months. Therefore, the said case has no application to the facts of this case. In M.T. LATHEESH case (2 supra), the father of the respondent therein while working as a Clerk-cum-Cashier died. He was a pension optee. Therefore, the request of the respondent therein for appointment in the Bank on compassionate grounds was declined on the ground that respondent’s family was not indigent, since the family received a net terminal benefits of Rs.5,47,495/- and also monthly family pension of Rs.4,468/-. Under those circumstances, the Apex Court upheld the action of the respondents in rejecting the application of the respondent therein for compassionate appointment. The said case also has no application for the reason that no such exercise was made by the competent authority in this regard to find out as to financial position of the petitioner’s family and in fact, the case of the petitioner was not rejected on that ground. In JASPAL KAUR’s case (3 supra), it was held that major criterion for appointment of a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of family of deceased person and unless financial condition is entirely penury, such appointments cannot be made. The said decision has no application to the facts of this case, since before rejecting the case of the petitioner, no such exercise was made by the respondents nor any reason was furnished in the impugned letter. In this case, merely because the mother of the petitioner was getting pension or she was paid some terminal benefits of her late husband (Watchman) that itself does not nullify the claim of the petitioner for compassionate appointment as per the scheme. Further, as it is more than 9 years since the father of the petitioner died, it cannot be said that petitioner cannot be appointed on compassionate grounds. One can understand if the very claim itself was made after 9 years after death of the employee etc. Mere pendency of the Writ Petition for long years before this Court would not make the claim of the petitioner infructuous. Thus, the case of the petitioner was rejected for untenable reasons and, therefore, the impugned Order is liable to be set aside. The impugned letter is accordingly set aside and the respondents are directed to consider appointment of the petitioner on compassionate grounds and pass appropriate orders, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and communicate the same to the petitioner. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. 27-3-2008 prk [1] 2006(5) SCC 766 [2] 2006(8) Scale 145 [3] 2007(3) SCJ 448