SOFINA M Vs. STATE OF BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first petitioner is the wife and second petitioner is the son of late Anthony. He had initially served the Armed Forces, and thereafter, was employed as Armed Guard, in the State Bank of India. He died on 24.1.2002, while in service. The first petitioner made an application to the respondents on 30.7.2002, with a request to appoint the second petitioner on compassionate grounds. The respondents addressed a letter, dated 21.8.2004, stating that the family of the petitioner cannot be said to be in penurious condition, and in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court on the subject, it is not possible to accede to the request of the petitioner. The letter dated 21.8.2004 is challenged in this writ petition.

(2.) Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel for the respondents.

(3.) The scheme of providing appointment on compassionate grounds to the dependants of an employee, who died while in service, was framed and implemented in Government and Semi- Government Organisations. The object of the scheme was to ensure that the sudden death of an employee does not leave his family in distress, and it is rescued from penury. Over the years, the scheme has assumed such a proportion that the death of every employee while in service has resulted in submission of claim for compassionate appointment, irrespective of the condition of the family. Instances are not lacking, when the employees while in service have retired on medical grounds, with the sole object of paving the way for compassionate appointment of their dependants. If at all any thing, these developments indicate the sense of social insecurity, particularly in the light of unemployment of a very high magnitude.