SUDHIR SAKHARAM JOSHI Vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has invoked jurisdiction of this Court for directions to the respondents for appointment in the clerical cadre on compassionate ground.

(2.) THE petitioners case, in brief, is that his father late Sakharam Laxman Joshi was working at Jatharpeth, Akola Branch of respondent No. 1 as a Peon. He died on 17-12-1993 and left behind his widow, two married daughters, an unmarried daughter and the petitioner as his only legal heirs. The petitioners mother applied for appointment of the present petitioner in the post of Clerk on account of the death of the father of petitioner. By application dated 29-12-1993, the petitioner also applied for compassionate appointment giving all details of the dependants of the deceased, moveable and immovable property, other assets and liabilities. The Branch Manager of respondent No. 1 vide letter dated 5-7-1994 rejected the application for compassionate appointment by merely stating that the application cannot 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. The petitioner again applied for reconsideration on 12-7-1994 and once again without giving any reasons, the petitioner was informed vide letter dated 1-9-1994 by the Branch Manager of the respondent No. 1 that the Head Office has informed that there was no change in the decision already communicated. It is in this background that the petitioner was forced to approached this Court for appointment on compassionate ground. In the return filed by the respondents on 20th September, 1995, for the first time, the respondent 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 retrial benefits which were admissible to late Sakharam Laxman Joshi and that the family was under no financial crisis or difficulty inasmuch as there were ample sources of income as also property left by late Sakharam Laxman Joshi.

(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:---