AJVEER SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Sri A.M. Saklani, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri SK Jain, the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) THIS petition has a chequered history. The facts leading to the filing of the writ petition can be said in a nutshell. The petitioner's father was appointed as a peon in the respondent bank in the year 1981 and worked for 21 long years without any grievance from any quarters and died in harness on 21st February, 2002. The petitioner applied for appointment on compassionate ground under the existing rules relating to compassionate appointment on 16th July, 2002. This application remained pending with the bank for reasons best known to them inspite of repeated reminders being sent by the petitioner from time to time which the bank has acknowledged receiving such reminders. Eventually, the claim of the petitioner was rejected by an order dated 15 -11 -2003 on the ground that since the income of the family was more than 60% of the last drawn pay of the deceased, the petitioner was accordingly not entitled for compassionate appointment under the scheme framed by the bank for compassionate appointment. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, filed Writ Petition No. 828/2004 (S/S) before this Court which was allowed by ajudgment dated 18 -05 -2006 and the order of the respondent -bank was quashed. The Court directed the bank to reconsider the petitioner's application and calculate with precision as to whether the notional income which the family was receiving was more than 60% of the last drawn pay of the deceased or not. The respondent -bank again reconsidered the application of the petitioner and once again rejected the claim of the petitioner by an order dated 17th August, 2006. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the said order, has filed the present writ petition.

(3.) THE sole ground mentioned in the impugned order for rejecting the application of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate ground is that the notional income which the family of the deceased was receiving was more than 60% of the last drawn pay and, consequently, the petitioner was not entitled to be considered for appointment on compassionate ground since the petitioner was not an indigent person nor the family was in distress as held by the Supreme Court in various judgments.