HOMDAS LOBNIYA Vs. MADHYA PRADESH GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition preferred under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have challenged the order dtd. 16/6/2021 (Annexure P/5) and order dtd. 28/10/2021 (Annexure P/6) passed by respondent No.2 and respondent No.1 respectively whereby their claim for appointment of petitioner No.2 on compassionate basis has been rejected.

(2.) The facts of the case are that Rahul Lobaniya was employed with the respondents / bank as a clerk. He expired on 22/4/2021 in harness. Thereafter petitioner No.1 made an application on 8/6/2021 before respondents for appointment of petitioner No.2 on compassionate basis submitting that petitioner No.2 is brother of the deceased and the entire family is dependent upon him hence as per the policy for appointment on compassionate basis of the respondents he deserves to be granted such appointment. The application has been rejected by respondents No.1 and 2 by the impugned orders on the ground that name of petitioner No.2 was not mentioned as a dependent by the deceased while he was in service hence he is not entitled for such appointment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the respondents have erred in rejecting the application of the petitioners for appointment of petitioner No.2 on compassionate basis which is contrary to their own policy in that regard. There is no rule that application for compassionate appointment can only be made by dependant whose name is mentioned in the service records of the deceased. The appointment has to be made in terms of the policy and petitioner No.2 fulfills the eligibility criteria as laid down therein. The entire family of the petitioners was dependent upon the deceased and if petitioner No.2 is given compassionate appointment it would enure to the benefit of the entire family. It is hence submitted that the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and petitioner No.2 deserves to be granted compassionate appointment.