SHIBANI GHOSH Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioners, inter alia, pray for a writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to issue appointment letter to the petitioner No. 2 and a writ in the nature of Prohibition prohibiting the respondents from issuing any letter of appointment to. any person under the died-in-harness category till an appointment to the petitioner No. 2 or till the disposal of the present writ petition.

(2.) THE petitioner No. 1 is the mother of petitioner No. 2. The husband of the petitioner No. 1 and the father of the petitioner No. 2 died-in-harness on March 22, 2004 while working as a security guard in the State Bank of India. After the death of the said employee the family of the petitioners faced financial problems and in June, 2004 the petitioners approached the authorities for employment of the petitioner No. 2 on compassionate ground. The petitioners approached the respondents many times thereafter; but the authorities did not favour them with appointment. Ultimately the petitioners sent a notice demanding justice in July, 2011 through their learned Advocate. The petitioners received a reply that with effect from August 4, 2005 the bank authorities have decided to pay an ex gratia lump sum amount for payment in lieu of payment on compassionate ground. The petitioners were requested to submit an application for payment of ex-gratia amount.

(3.) ON January 9, 2012 an Advocate's letter was sent to the respondents requesting them to grant compassionate appointment and other consequential benefits. According to the petitioners they filed an application in time and if it had been processed properly the petitioner No. 2 would by now have been in service. The respondents had harassed the petitioners and have now taken a plea that they have withdrawn the scheme of compassionate appointment from June, 2005. The changed scheme can only have prospective effect and cannot be retrospectively applied. The petitioners' grievance is that the respondents were trying to dislodge the petitioner No. 2 on a prospective circular which does not apply to the case of the petitioner.