NEELAM SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By means of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent nos. 2 and 3 to appoint the petitioner no.2 on a suitable post in Class-III or Class-IV.

(2.) Briefly stated facts of the present case, as noticed by this Court, are that the husband of the petitioner no.1, namely, late Chandra Bhushan Singh was a permanent employee of State Bank of India, who was posted as Messenger in Civil Lines Branch, Allahabad. On 06.12.2007, Chandra Bhushan died during his service and left behind him two sons, namely, Abhishek Singh-petitioner no.2 and Avinash Singh, his widow wife-petitioner no.1-Smt. Neelam Singh and his old ailing parents. After the death of Chandra Bhushan Singh, the petitioners have made an application for appointment on compassionate ground before the respondent no.2-Chief Manager Human Resources (Network-III) Local Head Office Moti Mahal Marg, Lucknow in favour of petitioner no. 2, namely, Abhishek Singh, son of late Chandra Bhushan Singh. Vide letter dated 06.02.2008, the petitioners were informed by the respondent no.2 that presently there is no provision for appointment under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner can not be made, hence, this writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that large number of dependents of Class III and IV, who died during service period, were given appointments by the respondents in various branches of the State Bank of India, but in the case of the petitioners, he has not been given appointment on compassionate ground, which is illegal. He has further submitted that only Rs.1,60,000/- has been paid as fund, which is too meager. He has further submitted that petitioners have no other source of livelihood and if the appointment of the petitioner no.2 is denied, the petitioners and their family member will suffer. The petitioner no.2 fulfills all minimum qualifications for being appointed on any Class-III/Class-IV posts, therefore, the petitioner no. 2 is entitled to be appointed as his younger brother and mother have no objection.