Chetansinh Ghanubha Jadeja vs Chairman / Managing Director, Dena Bank Head Office and Others

V.M. Sahai, J.—We have heard learned Counsel Mr. P.H. Pathak for the Appellant and Mr. Varun Patel for the Respondents.

Present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed challenging the order dated 29.1.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 11600 of 2008, whereby the learned Single Judge has dismissed the petition filed by the Appellant.

Father of the Appellant died in harness on 7.9.2002. The Appellant made application for compassionate appointment on 1.10.2002, which was received by the Respondents on 11.3.2003. The application was forwarded by the local office to the Regional office on 12.3.2003.

The Government of India by its communication dated 14.2.2002 directed the Respondent Bank not to recruit any person in subordinate and clerical cadre under any circumstance for a period of 5 years. Therefore, there was a ban imposed by the Government of India on appointment in the Respondent Bank.

In December 2003, the Chairman/Managing Director of the Bank has approved 57 cases for appointing dependents of deceased employees on compassionate ground in clerical and subordinate cadre and sought approval of the Government of India for making these appointments as a ''special case''. Permission was granted by the Government of India and accordingly, the said 57 persons, who were dependents of deceased employees who died in harness between March 1998 and November 2003, were appointed.

The grievance of the Petitioner is that his father had died in the year 2002, therefore his case was required to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground. According to the Respondents, the application was not made by the Petitioner along with required full papers.

The learned Counsel for the Respondents urged that there were various dependents of deceased employees from March 1998 till 2005, in all 72 cases, who have not yet got appointment on compassionate ground for the reason that their applications were not made along with required full papers.

In para 4(iii)(c) and (iv) of the Supplementary Affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondents, it had been stated that the deceased employee was an Ex-Army personnel and family of the deceased employee is receiving monthly family pension of Rs. 5375/- from the Army since February 2011 and the Bank is also paying to the widow of the deceased the family pension to the tune of Rs. 3,000/- per month with effect from 27.11.2009. Therefore, the financial condition of the family of the Appellant is sound.

Learned Counsel Mr. Pathak for the Appellant has urged that comparative chart of all 57 persons should be placed before this Court for the purpose of showing that what family pension their families were receiving when they were granted compassionate appointment and their financial condition should be compared with the financial condition of the Appellant. The other argument of the learned Counsel for the Appellant is that the ground on which the compassionate appointment was refused to the Appellant was only that his application was time barred. The next argument is that the case of the Appellant is similar to Smt. Gitaben J. Trivedi. Mr. Pathak further urged that the details have not been provided by the Respondents that when the application of the Appellant was received by the Respondents. He further urged that the Appellant had been arbitrarily discriminated when in the similar set of facts, four persons have been appointed on compassionate ground. He lastly urged that the family pension and post death benefits received by family cannot be considered while considering the claim for compassionate appointment. He has placed reliance on a decision of the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Balbir Kaur and Another Vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and Others,

The father of the Petitioner died in the year 2002 and we are in 2011. More than 8 years have passed. The family has survived. The financial condition of the family of the Appellant is now good as the family of the Appellant is receiving more than Rs. 8000/- per month towards family pension from Army and the Bank. Apart from family pension, the family must have received post-death benefits also. Compassionate appointments are provided to meet with immediate exigency of the family of the deceased. It is not a source of recruitment. The Hon''ble Apex Court has laid down a law in number of cases, particularly in the case of State Bank of India and Others Vs. Jaspal Kaur, , that-

Hence a major criterion while appointing a person on compassionate grounds should be the financial condition of the family the deceased person left behind. Unless the financial condition is entirely penurious, such appointments cannot be made.

The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India and Another Vs. Raj Kumar, vide para 8 and 9, held as under:

It is now well settled that appointment on compassionate grounds is not a source of recruitment. On the other hand it is an exception to the general rule that recruitment to public services should be on the basis of merit, by an open invitation providing equal opportunity to all eligible persons to participate in the selection process. The dependents of employees, who die in harness, do not have any special claim or right to employment, except by way of the concession that may be extended by the employer under the rules of by a separate scheme, to enable the family of the deceased to get over the sudden financial crisis. The claim for compassionate appointment is therefore traceable only to the scheme framed by the employer for such employment and there is no right whatsoever outside such scheme. An appointment under the scheme can be made only if the scheme is in force and not after it is abolished/withdrawn. It follows therefore that when a scheme is abolished, any pending application seeking appointment under the scheme will also cease to exist, unless saved. The mere fact that an application was made when the scheme was in force, will not by itself create a right in favour of the applicant.

Normally, the three basic requirements to claim appointment under any scheme for compassionate appointment are (i) an application by a dependent family member of the deceased employee; (ii) fulfillment of the eligibility criteria prescribed under the scheme, for compassionate appointment; and (iii) availability of posts, for making such appointment. If a scheme provides for automatic appointment to a specified family member, on the death of any employee, without any of the aforesaid requirements, it can be said that the scheme creates a right in favour of the family member for appointment on the date of death of the employee. In such an event the Scheme in force at the time of death would apply.

Since the financial condition of the family of the Appellant is good and we are of the considered opinion that the Appellant is not entitled for appointment on compassionate ground, we are not required to consider the other arguments raised by the learned Counsel for the Appellant.

For the aforesaid reasons, we do not find any illegality in the order dated 29.1.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No. 11600 of 2008. The Appeal fails and is dismissed.