S C RUPCHANDANI Vs. CHAIRMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Shri. Uday Joshi, learned counsel for the respondent Bank waives services of notice of rule for respondent Bank. With the consent of the parties, rule is fixed forthwith.

(2.) THE petitioner by this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the denial of compassionate appointment to the son of the petitioner by order dated 8/7/1997, 24/10/1997 and 01/04/1998, on the ground that though the petitioner was entitled to receive compassionate appointment for his son as he was required to be relieved on compulsory retirement on account of medical grounds, the rejection was solely based upon the ground of financial condition of the family which was never a criterion for rejecting the request for compassionate appointment as per the policy promulgated by the respondent Bank.

(3.) FACTS in brief deserve to be set out in order to appreciate the controversy: in the respondent Bank there exist a policy for appointing dependants of employees retiring from or leaving the Banks service on health grounds. The relevant extract is produced on page-16 which provide for offering appointment to the dependants of employees retiring from the Bank's service or leaving the Bank's service on medical ground. The petitioner at the relevant time was serving as Deputy Manager (Adv) at Kalol. While in service he was having some trouble in his eyes and therefore, subjected himself to examination by Medical Board and the Board in turn opined that the petitioner was unfit to carry on his duties and therefore, required to be retired on medical grounds. The Medical Board examined the petitioner on 19/6/1996 and declared him to be permanently and completely unfit to continue in Bank's service and therefore petitioner on health ground w. e. f. 19/6/1996 retired. As per the policy of appointing dependants of such employees who retired on medical grounds the petitioner made an application for obtaining appointment of his son on compassionate ground vide his application dated 24/6/1996. The petitioner supplied all the relevant documents and material as per the information required for considering the case of his son for being appointed on medical grounds. Clarifications were sought from petitioner which were supplied by petitioner. The petitioner had to put up reminders also, however they were not replied. On 8/7/1997 respondent no. 3 rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that on examination of his financial position there was no case for offering compassionate appointment as prayed. Accordingly the request was rejected vide order dated 8/7/1997. The petitioner put up a representation on 21/7/1997 justifying his application for seeking appointment of his son on basis of the compassionate ground as per the policy existing in the respondent Bank. The respondent Bank issued reply dated 24/10/1997 regarding its inability to consider his request for appointment of his son in the Bank's service on compassionate ground. Once again the petitioner addressed a communication by way of representation dated 30/10/1997 detailing therein the cases in which compassionate appointments were given to dependants of such employees who had retired on medical grounds and contending that the financial position ought not to have been the criteria to be considered for denying the compassionate appointment to the dependant of an employee retiring on medical grounds. This representation also came to be rejected by the respondent Bank vide communication dated 01/04/1998 with a rider that, 'no further correspondence would be entertained in this behalf'. Said communication dated 01/04/1998 is at page 57 in the memo of the petition. Being aggrieved by this rejection present petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner.