AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.
The case of the petitioner, in a short compass, is that the father of the petitioner died in harness in 2002 while serving as Head Cashier in the State Bank of India, Kuraoli, District Mainpuri. The petitioner applied for compassionate appointment under the Uttar Pradesh Dependents of Government Servants Dying in Harness Rules, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) which has been rejected by the competent authority of the respondent-Bank on the ground that the family was not in indigent circumstance and has sufficient means to sustain.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Balbir Kaur and Anr. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Ors. (2003) 3 U.P.L.B.E.C. 2055 in support of his contention that compassionate appointment can be granted even if the family of the deceased - has received benefit of Family Benefit Scheme. He has also relied upon the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others,
The case of Balbir Kaur and Anr. (supra) was considered by the Patna High Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4748 of 2002, Nawneet Kumar v. The State Bank of lndia and Ors. The Patna High Court in judgment dated 20.8.2002 observed that the decision given in Balbir Kaur and Another was distinguished by a Division Bench of that Court in Kunti Devi v. The Chairman-cum-Managing Director. Syndicate Bank wherein the Court noticed that the issue in that case was whether in view of the Family Benefit Scheme, 1992 framed in terms of the NJSC Tripartite Agreement of 1989 which assured a regular income till the date of normal superannuation or depositing the amount of provident fund and gratuity, compassionate appointment can be denied to the family of the deceased. In that context the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur and Anr. held that the Family Benefit Scheme cannot be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointment which was in vogue from before and that the provision regarding deposit of the amounts of provident fund or gratuity was violative of the relevant provisions of Employees Provident Fund and Miscellaneous Provision Act, 1952, the Scheme framed thereunder and the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 and as such the decision in the case of Balbir Kaur and Another was of no help.
The decision of the Patna High Court dated 20.8.2002 rendered in Nawneet Kumar v. State Bank of India and Ors. was challenged by filing a Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 211 of 2003 which was dismissed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court.
This Court also in Writ Petition No. 12687 of 2003. Smt. Mitali Gupta v. State Bank of India, Central Office. Nariman Point. Mumbai and 3 Ors., dismissed the claim of compassionate appointment of the petitioner. Aggrieved by the judgment rendered in the aforesaid Writ Petition No. 12687 of 2003, Special Appeal No. 1243 of 2004, Smt. Mitali Gupta v. State Bank of India and Ors. was filed. In the Special Appeal the Division Bench considered various judgments on the subject including the judgment rendered in Balbir Kaur and Another Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others, and dismissed the Special Appeal holding that the decision given in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana and Others, , cited by the petitioner-appellant was of no help as it highlights the object of granting compassionate employment which is to enable the family of the deceased to tide over the sudden crisis and the object is not to give a member of such family a post much less a post for post held by the deceased.
It has been noticed by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in a large number of cases that the object of the Dying in Harness Rules is to enable the family to tide over the sudden crisis and to get it over in emergency. It is apparent from the various decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court considered by the Division Bench of this Court in Special Appeal No. 1243 of 2004 that the sole purpose of granting compassionate appointment to a member of the deceased Government servant is to enable the family of the deceased to tide over the sudden financial crisis and not to enable it to meet out future liabilities.
The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that all the four brothers of the petitioner are educated and unmarried and none of the family members has any source of income is not a valid reason for compassionate appointment. The amount received by. the petitioner after the death of his father was sufficient to tide over the sudden crisis and it cannot be said that the family is in financial crisis and cold penury as It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the mother of the petitioner is being paid Rs. 4471/- as pension per month, which is payable up to 2007 and thereafter she would receive Rs. 3584/- as pension per month. Besides this, she has already been paid the following post-death benefits of the deceased.
Gratuity amounting to Rs. 1,59,913/-
Provident Fund amounting to Rs. 3,22,669/-
Leave Encashment amounting to Rs. 1,03,499/-
Apart from above it is admitted fact that the petitioner has his own ancestral house, in which all members of the family of the deceased are living jointly with the family of brother of the deceased.
For the reasons given above, the petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.