AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The father of petitioner, namely, Shri Ashok Philip expired on 8/2/93. He died in harness, therefore, petitioner applied for grant of compassionate
appointment vide his application dated 27/05/93.
It was submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioner that his condition is penurious. He has all the qualifications to be appointed as
messenger. It is also submitted that petitioner has been denied appointment on the post of messenger while one person namely Mr Akeel Ahmed
Khan has already been given an appointment on the basis of order passed by Hon’ble The Supreme Court. Vide order dated 5.8.1996, the
application of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment has been rejected in the light of the judgment passed by Hon’ble The Supreme
Court in the matter of Umesh Kumar Nagpal versus State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 138.
Respondents have considered the application filed by the petitioner. It was held by the respondents that the condition of family was not found to be
penurious. It is submitted in the reply filed by the respondents that widow of deceased is engaged in nursing duty and she gets a sum of Rs.1200/- per
month and over and above this, they are getting a sum of Rs.191/- as family pension. The total monthly income of the family of deceased is Rs.2540/-.
The take-home salary of the deceased employee at the time of his death was Rs.1655/- per month. In view of the aforesaid, the application for grant
of compassionate appointment was rejected on 20/07/2004. Petitioner cannot claim equity with Akeel Ahmed Khan as the case of individual is just on
peculiar circumstances available in his case. No discrimination has been made in considering the case of the petitioner and scheme has duly been
followed.
Considered the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.
Respondent/Bank has filed documents to show notional monthly income of the family of the deceased, which clearly reflects that condition of the
family was not penurious at the time when his application was considered. It does not seem appropriate to grant compassionate appointment to the
petitioner after lapse of about 27 years. Petitioner is able to sustain himself, his wife and son for all these long years. Grant of compassionate
appointment is an exception and it has to be granted as per the policy. As per the policy, the condition of petitioner’s family was not found poor. I
do not find any error in the impugned order dated 05/08/04.
Resultantly, this writ petition filed by the petitioner is dismissed.