BANK OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. MANOJ KUMAR DEHARIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Order of the Court was delivered by :-In the light of the decision rendered in T. Swamy Dass Vs. Union of India and Others, 2002 (2) MPHT 320, and the perceptual shift with regard to 'compassionate appointment' and the recurring problem that is faced during the process of adjudication, a Division Bench to put the controversy to rest, referred the following singular question with alternatives to be addressed by a larger Bench: "In a case of compassionate appointment pursuant to the death of a deceased employee, which policy of the, Government is to be applied:- 1. The policy prevailing at the time of the death of employee? OR

(2.) The policy prevailing at the time of application for compassionate appointment? OR

(3.) The policy prevailing at the time of consideration of the application for compassionate appointment?" 2. Facts, in brief, are that the respondent, Manoj Kumar Deharia, filed a writ petition before this Court claiming compassionate appointment and seeking quashment of an order-dated 31.5.2004 passed by the appellant-bank, rejecting his claim. It was the case of the respondent that his father, Late Lochan Singh Deharia, while working as a clerk, died in harness on 1.11.1996. On 28.11.1996, he submitted an application seeking compassionate appointment to the appellant. The Branch Manager of the bank concerned forwarded the said application to the Regional Office on 19.2.1997. When the application was submitted on 28.11.1996, the Scheme for compassionate appointment in the Bank was in accord with the Circular/Policy dated 25.1.1989. However, with effect from 27.2.1997 a New- Policy came into existence and by the time the respondent's application, forwarded on 19.2.1997 by the Branch Manager reached the Regional Office, the New Policy dated 27.2.1997 had come into force. Accordingly, the appellant Bank considered the claim of the respondent for appointment on compassionate grounds in accordance with the New Policy and finding him ineligible, rejected his claim by the order impugned in the writ petition dated 31.5.2004. 3. It was the case of the respondent before the writ court that his father had expired on 1.11.1996, he had submitted his application on 28.11.1996 and the application was forwarded by the Branch Manager on 19.2.1997. That being so, it was submitted, his application should have been processed and decided in accordance with the conditions incorporated in the Circular/Policy dated 25.1.1989 and in considering his claim in accordance to the New Policy, which came into effect from 27.2.1997, the appellants have committed grave error and, therefore, interference in the matter was warranted. The writ court vide order-dated 20.3.2007, passed in W.P.(S) No.7038/2004, held that the claim of the respondent cannot be rejected on the basis of the new policy, which was not in vogue when the application was submitted or when his father had expired, and should have been decided on merits as per the old policy, and accordingly remanded for fresh consideration within four months. The present appeal under section 2(1) of the M.P. Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyay Peeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 was filed by the Bank assailing the said order passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petition. While hearing the appeal on 14.1.2008, the Division Bench framed the aforesaid questions of law and referred the matter for consideration by a Full Bench. Thus, the matter has been placed before us.