Mohit Chopra vs Punjab National Bank and Another

Jawahar Lal Gupta, J.—The petitioner claims that his father having expired, he is entitled to the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. He prays that the orders by which his claim has been rejected, be quashed and a direction be issued to the respondents to appoint him.

A written statement has been filed on behalf of the Punjab National Bank. It has been inter alia pointed out that the petitioner''s mother is already working as a Junior Management Grade Scale I Officer in the Bank. She is drawing a gross monthly salary of Rs.13000/- approximately. Besides this, it has also been pointed out that initially, the petitioner''s claim was examined. Since he was a minor, the mother was informed that his claim shall be considered after he attains majority. However, in view of the fact that the mother is already employed, no ground for the grant of appointment is made out.

Counsel for the parties have been heard.

The provision for the grant of appointment on compensate grounds is calculated to help a family which has lost its bread-winner. It is to enable it to tide over the financial crisis. It is to help the needy and not the greedy. Admittedly, the petitioner''s mother is gainfully employed with the Bank. She is getting a salary of Rs.13000/- P.M. It cannot be said that the family is facing acute ''penury''. It is not going through a financial crisis. It is well provided for. Consequently, no ground for accepting the claim for the grant of appointment on compassionate basis is made out.

Public offices are not hereditary. These are not passed on from father to son. Basically, under the Constitution, every post has to be filled up after considering the claims of all eligible persons. That is the guarantee enshrined under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. An exception has been made by the departments of the Government and various other Institutions by making a provision for the grant of appointment on compassionate grounds. However, such a power is an exception to the general rule of equality as enshrined in the Constitution. It has to be rarely resorted to and to help only such persons as are really needy. A provision meant to help a person in distress can''t be made into a rule. There are a large number of unemployed persons in this Country. They have no source of livelihood. Under the law, they are required to compete with the other eligible candidates before they can be granted any appointment. Herein, the petitioner wants to get into the service of the Bank without competing on the basis of the death of his father. He has no right to maintain such a claim.

Mr. Arora contends that vide letter dated October 8, 1992, a copy of which has been produced as Annexure P.5 with the writ petition, a promise had been made to the petitioner''s mother that he would be given an appointment on attaining majority.

In the circumstances of the case, it appears that there was no justification for even holding out a hope to the petitioner. The mother was admittedly working in the Bank even at that time. If under a mistake, a letter was written, it cannot confer an indefeasible right on the petitioner to claim appointment. Even the rule of equitable estoppel is not attracted.

The petition is wholly frivolous. It is, consequently, dismissed. No costs.