Indra Nath Chowdhury vs Union Bank Of India & Ors

Amrita Sinha, J

The matter relates to appointment on compassionate ground.

The petitioner is the son of an employee of the Union Bank of India who died-in-harness on February 23, 2017. The petitioner applied for being appointed on compassionate ground on October 25, 2017.

The prayer of the petitioner was considered by the Bank and by a communication dated February 18, 2019 the petitioner was intimated that as the family income of the petitioner was more than the last salary drawn by the deceased employee the family does not fall under the criteria of 'Indigency of Family Income' as per the Scheme of Compassionate Appointment in the Bank. The prayer for compassionate appointment was declined. The petitioner thereafter made a representation before the Bank praying for re-consideration of his prayer.

By an order dated August 28, 2019 the prayer of the petitioner was rejected once again on the ground that there was no discrepancy in calculation for assessing the financial indigency of the family of the petitioner. The assessment of the financial condition of the family had been made after taking into account the amount available to the dependents by way of terminal benefits, family pension, family pension from defence, investments and income from other sources after adjusting the liabilities as per information submitted by the petitioner and the records available with the Bank. The petitioner is aggrieved by the same.

The petitioner relies upon the Scheme for compassionate appointment in public sector banks, which came into effect on and from August 5, 2014 wherein there is a provision which states that requests for compassionate appointment consequent on death or retirement on medical grounds of erstwhile sub-staff may be considered with greater sympathy by applying relaxed standards depending on the facts and circumstances of the case.

The petitioner submits that his case is liable to be considered on sympathetic ground as per the said Scheme.

The learned advocate appearing on behalf of the Bank relies upon the Scheme for appointment on compassionate ground of the Union Bank of India dated January 19, 2015. The said Scheme has been adopted by the Bank based on the Government directives.

According to the eligibility criteria of the said Scheme, for assessment of the financial condition, the income of the family from all sources including the family pension, terminal benefits, proceeds of insurance policies and other investments etc. and the employment of family members, size of the family and liabilities, if any, will be taken into consideration.

The Bank has taken into consideration the family income of the petitioner after the death of the employee wherefrom it appears that the family of the petitioner, at present, is earning a sum of Rs. 32,289/- per month, which is Rs. 8,363/- in excess of the last full month's salary of 23,926/- drawn by the deceased employee. From the aforesaid calculation it appears that the family is earning more after the death of the employee.

The learned advocate for the bank relies upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the matter of Union Bank of India v. M.T. Latheesh reported in (2006) 7 SCC 350 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the specially constituted authorities in the rules or regulations are better equipped to decide the cases on facts of the case and their objective finding arrived on the appreciation of the full fact should not be disturbed. The Court reiterated the principle that compassionate appointment being an exception to the general rule the appointment has to be exercised only in warranting situations and circumstances existing in granting appointment and guiding factor should be the financial condition of the family. The applicant may not be entitled to claim relief because the financial status of the family is much above the criterion fixed in the Scheme.

It has been submitted that the calculation that has been made to assess the financial indigency of the family of the petitioner clearly shows that at present the family is earning more than what the family used to earn when the employee was in service and there is no reason to interfere with the said finding of the authority.

The respondent also relies upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of State Bank of India & Ors. v. Surya Narayan Tripathi, reported in 2014(3) SCALE 536 wherein the Court reiterated the stand taken in the matter of M.T. Latheesh (supra). The Court held that if the benefits are comparable then there is no case for compassionate appointment.

The respondents pray for dismissal of the writ petition.

After hearing the submissions made on behalf of both the parties and upon perusal of the materials on record it appears that the family of the petitioner is earning every month a sum of Rs. 10,021/- on account of family pension from the Bank, Rs. 19,165/- on account of family pension from defence as the deceased employee was an ex-serviceman, a sum of Rs. 600/- as other monthly income pension from the welfare society. The total funds in the hands of the dependent family members is Rs.32,289/- per month. The employee when in service received a sum of Rs. 23,926/- per month. The present income of the family is more than what the employee received during his lifetime.

There is no record to show that the family is financially indigent, which requires interference for passing direction upon the respondents for consideration of his case for appointment on compassionate ground. In the absence of such financial stringency there is no scope on the part of the respondents to provide compassionate appointment to the member of the dependent family.

It is settled law that compassionate appointment is not a matter of right. The same is an exception to the general rule of appointment by open competition. The right to appointment flows from the Scheme. The Bank has considered the prayer of the petitioner and found him ineligible according to the criteria of the Scheme. The impugned decision of the bank does not call for any interference.

In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant case.

WP No. 18422(W) of 2019 is dismissed.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible on compliance of all necessary formalities.