PANKAJ SHRIDHAR DAMLE Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court for directions to the respondents to appoint him in the Clerical Cadre on compassionate ground.

(2.) THE case of the petitioner, in brief, is that his late father Shri Shridhar Jaikrishna Damle was employed with respondent No. 1 in the Clerical Cadre; that his late father was suffering from an ailment of intestine for about 15 years prior to his demise, which ultimately culminated into Cancer. The petitioners father died on 17-6-1994. The deceased had left behind him his aged mother, his wife, two married daughters and the petitioner as the only legal heirs. The petitioner applied for appointment in the Clerical Cadre on compassionate ground vide application dated 4-7-1994. Thereafter there was communication between the Branch Manager and the petitioner seeking certain details which were furnished by the petitioner. Ultimately, vide letter dated 18-1-1995, the request of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the request could not be considered. No reasons whatsoever as to why the application could not be considered were given in the said letter. The petitioner had applied for compassionate appointment in terms of Annexures-A and B which provide for compassionate appointments. In such circumstances, even an administrative body is required to give reasons as to why the application could not be considered, but no such reasons were given by the respondent-Bank. In the return filed by the respondents on 20th September, 1995, for the first time, the respondents came out with the reason of rejection which is that the father of the petitioner had served substantial terms of his service with the respondent-Bank and was due to retire in a short span of time. According to the respondents, whatever appointments are referred to by the petitioner were well merited mostly for reasons such as financial difficulties and crisis and other problems. According to the respondent-Bank, it has exercised the discretion in the most judicious and reasonable manner inasmuch as it is not obligatory on the bank that each and every application for compassionate appointment be granted. It is also stated in the return that a lumpsum amount has been released in favour of the petitioners family as retiral benefits which were admissible to late Shridhar Damle and that the family was under no financial crisis or difficulty is asmuch as there were ample sources of income as also property left by late Shridhar Damle.

(3.) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner drew our attention to Annexures-A and B which are on the subject of appointment on compassionate ground. In this connection, our attention has been drawn to paragraph 2 of Annexure-A which reads as under :-2. Appointment under the Scheme -