SATYAWATI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband of the petitioner sh. Ravi Datt was working as a Peon with the respondent - Punjab National Bank and passed away on 26.2.1999. Petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate grounds and the same was rejected vide letter dated 7.4.2002. Petitioner has thus filed the present writ petition for quashing of the said letter and for her appointment on compassionate grounds.

(2.) . A perusal of the letter dated 7.4.2000 shows that the ground for rejection stated therein is the financial condition of the petitioner. However, learned counsel for respondents 2 and 3 appearing today states that apart from the said reason the petitioner has placed before this court the "Scheme of employment of dependants of the employees who died in service of the bank on compassionate grounds" and the relevant paragraph dealing with the qualifications is as under :-

(3.) . A reading of the aforesaid paragraph shows that there is a requirement of matriculation which according to learned counsel for the respondents the petitioner does not possess. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, contended that this ground is not mentioned In the impugned letter dated 7.4.2000 where the only issue mentioned is of the financial condition of the petitioner. Learned counsel relies upon Judgment of the Supreme Court delivered by a Bench of two Hon'ble Judges in Balbir Kaur and another vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and others AND Smt. T K Meenaksi and another vs. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and others AIR 2000 SC 1596. The said case dealt with the interpretation of the family benefit scheme as introduced in NJSC tripartite Agreement of 1989 and the consequences thereof on the existing welfare measures as contained in NJSC Agreement in 1983. The request for compassionate appointment had been negated in view of the family benefit scheme in terms whereof in case retiral benefits were not taken or returned, the heirs of the deceased employee would be entitled to the same salary as the deceased employee was getting till the notional date of his superannuation. The Supreme Court was of the view that the grant of compassionate appointment has no correlation with the said scheme and observed further in respect thereof that if some lump sum amount is made available at that stage the same would not be a replacement for compasssionate employment.