IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.11409 of 2007 SAWAN DEVI, wife of late Sri Shambhu Rajak, resident of Chhoti Keshopur, Gale No.6, Dharhara Road, P.O. & P.S. Jamalpur, District Munger … Petitioner Versus 1. THE CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA through the Managing Director having its Central Office at Chandermukhi, Niriman Point, Mumbai- 400021 2. The Managing Director, Central Bank of India having its Central Office at Chandermukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 3. The General Manager (Personnel), Central Bank of India, Central Office, Chandermukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 4. The Dy. General Manager (PRS) Central Bank of India, Central Office, Chandermukhi, Nariman Point, Mumbai- 400021 5. The Zonal Manager, Central Bank of India at Block- B, 2nd Floor, Mauryalok Complex, Dak Bunglow Road, Patna- 800001 6. The Chief Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Purnea Regional Office, Bhatta Bazar P.B.No. 34, Purnea 854301 7. The Regional Manager, Central Bank of India, Purnea Regional Office, at Bhatta Bazar/ P.B.No. 34, Purnea 854301 … Respondents ----------- 2. 8.4.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for Central Bank of India. Counsel for the petitioner seems to be correct while assailing the impugned order dated 22.5.2004 that the same does not contain any reason except using the expression “financial condition of the family is not that of indigence in nature”. Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bank, fairly submits that true it is that the 2 impugned order is not a speaking order but then from the representation of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure 5, it would appear that the family had sufficient funds. In the opinion of this Court not only the impugned order has to be tested on its own reasonings but in fact what would be penury for a particular family will depend from the facts of each case. The Bank, therefore, at the relevant point of time when it had formulated its policy for appointment on compassionate ground had also set out certain parameters, one of them being last take home salary of the deceased employee and the resources still available to the family after his death. It is only the comparison of the two amounts and the liability of the deceased employee in terms of number of dependent family members which have to be considered for taking a decision as with regard to financial condition of the family. Admittedly that has not been done while passing the impugned order. Admittedly the petitioner himself has filed an exhaustive representation on 3 Surendra/ 29.4.2005 which till date has not been disposed of. This Court, therefore, while setting aside the impugned order dated 22.5.2004, as contained in Annexure 4, would remit the matter back to the competent authority of the Central Bank of India to take a decision strictly in accordance with the policy which was then in vogue and under which the case of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground was earlier rejected. In view of the fact that the petitioner has been pressing for appointment on compassionate ground for a long period of time and the matter has remained pending either in the Bank or before this Court for nearly ten years, this Court would direct that the representation filed by the petitioner, as contained in Annexure 5, must be disposed of by a speaking order within a period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. This application is allowed to the extent indicated above. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)