CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(2004) 09 P&H CK 0096

Anita Bhatia vs State Bank of India and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 27 September 2004 · Citation: (2004) 138 PLR 894

HON’BLE JUDGES
S.S. Nijjar, J · J.S. Narang, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 15122 of 2004

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 351 words

S.S. Nijjar, J.—We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length.

2.

We are of the considered opinion that in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of it would not be possible to grant any relief to the petitioner. In the aforesaid case, Umesh Kumar Nagpal v. State of Haryana 1994 (3) S.C.T. 174, the Supreme Court has observed as under:-

"For these very reasons, the compassionate employment cannot be granted after a lapse of a reasonable period which must be specified in the rules. The consideration for such employment is not a vested right which can be exercised at any time in future. The object being to enable the family to get over the financial crises which it faces at the time of the death of the sole bread-winner, the compassionate employment cannot be claimed and offered whatever the lapse of time and after the crisis is over."

3.

In the present case, the husband of the petitioner died on 16.7.1997. The petitioner was prosecuted for the murder of her late husband. Ultimately, she has been acquitted. She now claims compassionate appointment. Mr. Chopra has made an emotional plea for necessary direction to the respondents for giving the appointment to the petitioner on compassionate grounds. He has submitted that the petitioner has two minor children. The pensionary benefits which are received by the petitioner are not sufficient to ensure a reasonable standard of living for her and the children. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner is living in rented accommodation. Most of the amount being paid by the respondent bank is spent on the rent. We are of the considered opinion that the petitioner cannot be said to in such penury as to justify her appointment on compassion- ate grounds. In this country where millions of people are living below the poverty line, the petitioner can hardly be said to be living in poverty. In such circumstances, it would not be possible to grant any relief to the petitioner.

4.

In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed.