SATISH KUMAR Vs. BRANCH MANAGER S.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and having considered this fact that the petitioner wants employment on compassionate ground on account of death of his father in harness. Petitioner's father died in harness on 1 st July, 2004, and petitioner applied for compassionate ground as it could be found from counter affidavit on 10th May, 2005. There is no dispute with regard to this fact. Undisputed fact is death of the petitioner's father. There was scheme providing compassionate appointment. When application was made for compassionate appointment, scheme for compassionate appointment was in force. In course of time scheme for compassionate appointment is withdrawn. The petitioner's case was not processed nor considered in terms of this scheme rather he was advised by communication in October, 2005 to apply under new scheme. In August, 2005, new scheme came into existence in place of old scheme. The new scheme provides for lumpsum payment in lieu of appointment in a fit case.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that new scheme will not have any application as the application was made prior thereto and this should be governed by the old scheme. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner's case has to be considered in terms of Clause 14 of the new Scheme which came into force on and from 4th August, 2005 as it was pending case on the date of commencement of new case. For sake of convenience, Clause 14 of the new Scheme is set out as follows:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner also draws my attention to a Supreme Court judgment in case of State Bank of India and another Vs. Raj Kumar, 2010 11 SCC 661which, according to him was rendered on identical issue.