SONAM SHARMA Vs. BANK OF BARODA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner and Sri Kartikeya Saran holding brief of Sri Vipin Sinha, learned Counsel for the Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. None appears on behalf of the Respondent No. 5.

(2.) The case of the Petitioner is that her father died on 29th June, 2004 while working in the Respondent-Bank in harness. Consequent thereto, the Petitioner's mother applied for compassionate appointment, which claim was rejected on 6th April, 2005 on account of her advanced age. The Petitioner moved an application for compassionate appointment on 31st May, 2005. The Respondents Have refused to accept the request of compassionate appointment and have alternatively offered a financial sanction of Rs. 6,00,000 (Six lacs) as ex-gratia payment described as financial relief to the family.

(3.) Sri M.D. Singh Shekhar, learned senior counsel for the Petitioner submits that in view of the scheme, which was prevalent at the time of death of the Petitioner's father, the Petitioner is entitled for being considered for compassionate appointment and any subsequent circular issued by the Bank would not divest the Petitioner of her legitimate claim of consideration. He relies on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of State Bank of India and Ors. v. Jaspal Kaur, 2007 3 JT 35. He has further invited the attention of the Court to the Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Special Appeal No. 954 of 2009, Baroda Eastern Uttar Pradesh Gramin Bank and Anr. v. Smt. Vijay Laxmi Srivastava and Anr., decided on 14.7.2009. He submits that the rejection of the claim of the Petitioner is founded on the erroneous application of a circular and, therefore, the relief claimed for by the Petitioner by quashing the orders dated 30th June. 2006 and 12th October, 2006 should be granted with a further direction to engage the Petitioner on compassionate basis.