PRAMOD KUMAR DIXIT Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a writ petition filed by the petitioner seeking appointment on compassionate ground in compliance to the letter dated 5th July, 2005 issued by the respondents. Another prayer made in the writ petition is that the respondents be restrained from enforcing the new scheme dated 4th August, 2005, by virtue of which the respondents are directing payment of ex-gratia payment to the petitioner in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated the facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the father of the petitioner was employed with the respondent/bank as an assistant at Palwal Branch, District faridabad, Haryana. On 29th January, 2004 he suffered a cardiac attack while on his way to office and expired. The father of the petitioner was survived by his widow aged about 40 years, daughter aged about 22 years, petitioner himself aged 20 years and another son aged about 19 years. On 10th April, 2004 the mother of the petitioner submitted a letter of request to the respondents that on account of their poor financial condition the family of the deceased may be provided employment on compassionate ground so that some regular source of income is fixed. On 25th April, 2005 a reminder was sent. The matter was examined and on 5th July, 2005 a letter was sent to the Palwal Branch Office intimating that the competent authority has in principle granted the approval for giving employment on compassionate ground to Pramod Kumar Dixit son of the deceased. He was required to furnish an undertaking that he will look after the dependants of the deceased employee apart from completing all other formalities. It was also said in the letter that he should keep himself ready for the interview to be held shortly, in respect of which the date, time and venue shall be intimated to him separately. Pursuant to this approval, a letter dated 2nd August, 2005 was sent by the petitioner enclosing therewith the requisite documents by way of an undertaking that he will take care of his mother and other dependants of the deceased. Since the petitioner did not hear anything after this, he was constrained to file the present writ petition on 27th April, 2006 for seeking a mandamus against the respondent to appoint the petitioner on compassionate ground. It is alleged by the petitioner that he had learnt about the factum of respondents having introduced a new scheme of granting of ex-gratia payment in lieu of appointment on compassionate ground on 4th August, 2005, the said scheme was also challenged and it was prayed that the said scheme may not be enforced against the petitioner.

(3.) THE respondents in the counter affidavit have contested the claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground on the ground that w. e. f. 4th August, 2005 a new scheme had been adopted by the respondents/management under which the petitioner at best is entitled to as ex-gratia payment, therefore, the petitioner could not be granted employment on compassionate ground.