KUMUDHINI SUDHAKAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorarified mandamus to quash the order dated 04.5.2004 bearing No. DGM:PER:NO:415, wherein the application for compassionate appointment was rejected on the ground that the family is not considered to be under Penurious conditions and indigent as per the guidelines received from Government of India based on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal (,/0701/1994, : 1994 AIR(SCW) 2305 . According to the petitioners, they are similarly placed and the cause of action is the same and the relief prayed for is the same. The father of the second petitioner was employed in the respondent Bank as Branch Manager and he died while he was in service on 02.8.2002. Since the family is in penurious conditions, the petitioners made an application for compassionate appointment by letter dated 09.10.2002 in the prescribed format. But the respondent rejected the application on the ground that the first petitioner is drawing family pension of Rs. 7,573/- and also taking into assumed interest on 80% surplus and totalling in all sum of Rs. 11,533/- as the total income of the family. Hence, the petitioners are before this Court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that: the respondent cannot take into account the pension while determining the financial position of the deceased family. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent failed to take into account the liabilities of the deceased employee for considering the case of Compassionate Appointment. The learned counsel for the petitioner also produced the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Balbir Kaur and another v. Steel Authority of India Limited and others, 2000 AIR(SC) 1596] to the effect that the family Benefit Scheme such as, payment of Gratuity, payment of lumpsum of Provident fund, Family pension etc., cannot be equated with the benefit of compassionate appointment. Therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioner prays that the writ petition has to be allowed.

(3.) The learned counsel for the respondent Bank submitted that for determining the eligibility for compassionate appointment, all the sources of income derived by the person has to be taken into account. The learned counsel for the respondent bank further submitted that the respondent, after taking into consideration all the aspects, has come to the conclusion that the petitioners are not coming under the definition "Penury". The learned counsel for the respondent Bank also produced the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in State Bank of India and another v. Somvir Singh, 2007 4 SCC 778] to substantiate the said contention. Therefore, the learned counsel for the respondent prays that the writ petition has to be dismissed.