IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11145 of 2006 RAMAN KUMAR RAMAN, S/O LATE BASANT KUMAR SINGH R/O T/G-3, WORKSMAN COLONY, BIRPUR, P.O AND P.S.-BIRPUR, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. ……………………PETITIONER. Versus 1.THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA THROUGH THE GENERAL MANAGER (PERSONNEL CENTRAL OFFICE), CHANDRAMUKHI NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI. 2.THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, CENTRAL OFFICE, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, CHANDRAMUKHI NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI. 3.THE ZONAL MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA,ZONAL OFFICE, BLOCK ‘B’, 2ND FLOOR, MAURYA LOK COMPLEX, DAK BANGLOW ROAD, PATNA- 1. 4.THE REGIONAL MANAGER,CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, SAHARSA, DISTRICT-SAHARSA. 5.THE BRANCH MANAGER, CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA, RAGHOPUR BRANCH, RAGHOPUR, DISTRICT-SUPAUL. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 04/ 29.03.2011 Heard counsel for the parties. Having regard to the facts that the Respondents while considering the case compassionate appointment of the petitioner have come to a specific conclusion that the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee is quite adequate and therefore the petitioner is ineligible under the guidelines/policy of the compassionate appointment of the Central Bank of India inasmuch as the petitioner does not qualify for compassionate appointment. Reference in this connection may be usefully made to judgments of the Apex Court, in the case of Umesh Kumar 2 Nagpal vs State of Haryana reported in 1994(4) SCC 138 reiterated in the case of Punjab National Bank vs Ashwini Kumar Taneja reported in 2004(7) SCC 265 as also in the case of General Manager (D & PB) and others vs Kunti Tiwary and another reported in 2004(7) SCC 271, Thus this court would hardly find any reason to interfere with the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his appointment on compassionate ground . Learned Counsel for the petitioner however had tried to demonstrate that the impugned order of the bank is a bald and not speaking order and does not at all deal with the comparative financial liability vis-a-vis assets of the deceased employee for coming to a conclusion that the financial condition of the family of the deceased employee was adequate. Unfortunately, this Court would find that when the petitioner himself in his application submitted to the bank that he did not disclose the details of the financial acquisitions i.e pension, gratuity, L.I.C, as also income from other sources, he could not have expected the respondents to have pass a reasoned order. Moreover the evaluation of the 3 financial condition of the petitioner by the bank is based on their own guidelines, in which all the acquisition and payment made to the deceased employee is to be taken into consideration. It is this aspect of the matter which has been set at rest by the Apex Court, in the case of Kunti Devi (supra). Thus in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court, as also the facts of the case of the petitioner, this Court would not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. That being so, this writ application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)