SUDHAKAR RAMCHANDRA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioner has prayed that respondents be directed to consider the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment and provide him the appointment on suitable post.

(2.) Shri L.N. Sakle, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have committed an error in issuing the rejection order dtd. 4/12/2001. Criticizing this order, it is urged that in view of the judgment of Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal Vs. State of Haryana, (1994) 4 SCC 138, the petitioner's claim for compassionate appiontment could not have been rejected on the basis of terminal dues received by the family of the deceased father of petitioner namely Shri Ramchandra Madankar.

(3.) This is not in dispute that father of petitioner died in harness on 16/2/2000 and petitioner's application for grant of compassionate appointment is turned down by order dated 4 thDecember, 2001. Shri Sakle by placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal (supra) submits that dependents of Class-III / Class- IV employees are entitled for compassionate appointment and respondents have certainly erred in rejecting the application.