NIKHIL KAPOOR Vs. STATE BANK OF PATIALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, petitioner prays for employment on compassionate ground. Petitioner claims to be the son of deceased Smt. Praveen Bala Kapoor who died in harness on 6.11.1993 i.e. about twenty years back i.e on 21.12.1993. The case as set out by the petitioner in the writ petition is that the respondent No.1/employer marked out a lien for appointment pursuant to its policy then applicable, however, when the petitioner became a major and obtained the qualification of senior secondary school i.e XII standard, and then when he applied for employment, he was refused employment.

(2.) ON behalf of the respondent No.1 in the counter affidavit, it is stated that the scheme which was applicable at the time when the petitioner 's entitlement was marked, was replaced by a new scheme which provided only for ex-gratia lumpsum amount vide the circular dated 24.11.2005. It is also argued that the entire object of giving compassionate appointment is to tide over the immediate financial difficulties created in the family of deceased employee on account of sudden death, and this rationale will not apply in the facts of the present case where the deceased Praveen Bala Kapoor had died about 18 years prior to filing of the petition. The observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Haryana State Electricity Board v. Hakim Singh, 1997 (8) SCC 85are relied upon and which read as under: -

(3.) THE Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Anr. v. Raj Kumar, III (2010) SLT 496=2010 (3) Scale 635 has held that the entitlement to compassionate appointment is not a matter of right and is not a substitute for a regular recruitment process. The Supreme Court has clarified that compassionate appointment can be granted only if there is a prevalent scheme for grant of compassionate employment, and not otherwise. The relevant paras of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India (supra) are paras 6 to 8 which read as under: -