WP/25655/2005 of Smt. Sofina M. Vs State Bank of India,Rep. by its Asst. General Manager, on 27 December 2005

O R D E R:

The first petitioner is the wife and second petitioner is the son of late Anthony. Hehad initially served the Armed Forces, and thereafter, was employed as ArmedGuard, in the State Bank of India. He died on 24.1.2002, while in service. The firstpetitioner made an application to the respondents on 30.7.2002, with a request toappoint the second petitioner on compassionate grounds. The respondentsaddressed a letter, dated 21.8.2004, stating that the family of the petitioner cannot besaid to be in penurious condition, and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Courton the subject, it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioner. The letterdated 21.8.2004 is challenged in this writ petition.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

The scheme of providing appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependantsof an employee, who died while in service, was framed and implemented inGovernment and Semi-Government Organisations. The object of the scheme was toensure that the sudden death of an employee does not leave his family in distress,and it is rescued from penury. Over the years, the scheme has assumed such aproportion that the death of every employee while in service has resulted insubmission of claim for compassionate appointment, irrespective of the condition ofthe family. Instances are not lacking, when the employees while in service haveretired on medical grounds, with the sole object of paving the way for compassionateappointment of their dependants. If at all any thing, these developments indicate thesense of social insecurity, particularly in the light of unemployment of a very highmagnitude.

Whatever be the justification for such claims, the appointment on compassionategrounds remained the only source of recruitment in the various Organisations, in thecontext of rationalization and reduction of man power. Slowly, a semblance ofsuccession of offices, has stepped in.

A phenomenon, which used to be viewed with utmost sympathy, naturally called fora practical approach. With the dawning and increase of frustration in theunemployed, a closer scrutiny of cases for appointment on compassionate groundsbecame imperative. It is in this context that the Supreme Court in its decision in SHRIUMESH KUMAR NAGPAL V. STATE OF HARYANA, took the view that suchappointments cannot be claimed or made, as a matter of course, and that it is only incase where the family is found to be in penury, without any other income, that thebenefit under the scheme can be extended. In the recent past, the Supreme Courtheld that the amount of pension and other benefits received by the family, is a factorto be taken into account. This Court followed the same in number of cases, andupheld the stand taken by the employers in rejecting the claims for compassionateappointment, where the families were found not to be in penurious condition.

In the instant case, even according to the petitioners, they are receiving familypension, and that the other amounts, which became payable on the death of lateAnthony, were kept in a deposit, with the object of paying the instalments from out ofthe accrued interest. This Court does not find any basis to interfere with the same.

Conclusion

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

___________________________

(L.NARASIMHA REDDY, J)

Dt.27[th] December 2005

Note: L.R.Copies be marked.

(B/o)

PAN