AMAN KUSHWAHA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Grievance of petitioner in this petition is non consideration of the claim of petitioner for grant of compassionate appointment.

(2.) Facts relevant for disposal of this petition are that father of petitioner late Rajendra Prasad Kushwaha while working on the post of Senior Head Messenger in State Bank of India, Branch Surajpur died in harness on 12/11/2018. After untimely death of his father, mother of petitioner submitted an application before respondent No.1 stating that after the sad demise of her husband her family is facing grave financial crises, therefore, the petitioner be provided compassionate appointment. She further submitted an application that she is not willing to take ex-gratia amount in case her son is provided compassionate appointment. The application submitted by petitioner for compassionate appointment was not considered in accordance with the circular dtd. 11/8/2014 and filed this petition seeking following reliefs :-

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner submits that Director, Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Financial Services, New Delhi issued letter dtd. 7/8/2014 and conveyed the approval of Government on the proposal of Indian Bank Association observing to open compassionate appointment in Public Sector Bank on the lines of Central Government and to discontinue the provisions of ex-gratia in lieu of compassionate appointment in Public Sector Banks. The Central Government requested Indian Bank Association to take appropriate action to circulate the revised scheme. State Bank of India with whom father of petitioner was under employment at the time of his untimely death is a Public Sector Bank and therefore is under obligation to comply with the directives issued by the Central Government. Date of death of father of petitioner is 12/11/2018, which is after letter dtd. 7/8/2014 of the Central Government directing the Banks to open compassionate appointment and therefore, the respondents are duty bound to provide compassionate appointment to petitioner as directed in letter dtd. 7/8/2014. Denying compassionate appointment to petitioner is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust.