ABDUL AHAD Vs. CHAIRMAN, CUTTACK GRAMYA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Short background involved in this case is that the father of the petitioner namely Abdul Rajak was a driver in "Cuttack Gramya Bank" presently nomenclated as "Odisha Gramya Bank". Father of the petitioner while was in service, at the age of 49 years suffered a massive heart attack on 26.4.2001 and died on that day itself. Father of the petitioner left behind his widow mother namely Rahemtum Nisha, a son i.e. the present petitioner, one married daughter and three unmarried daughters involving two minors. Since the petitioner was the sole bread earner and having a destitute family, the petitioner who was 21 years at the relevant point of time made an application to the Chairman of the "Cuttack Gramya Bank" for providing him an appointment under the compassionate ground. The petitioner's further case is that on 29.9.2001 a scheme for recruitment of the dependants of the deceased employee on compassionate ground was floated by the "Cuttack Gramya Bank" superseding the existing scheme for the said purpose. Taking help of the provision at Clause 5 of the new scheme the petitioner started his claim. It is also the case of the petitioner that the new scheme introduced had the effect on the case of deaths after 1st May of 1996. The application of the petitioner was considered and in the particular the Chairman vide his letter dated 8.5.2001 asked the Deputy General Manager Planning and Development Department (R.R.B Cell) , UCO Bank for clarification on the issue indicated therein.

(2.) The letter also indicated that the family of the petitioner was in dire financial distress. Nothing was communicated to the petitioner. As a consequence, the petitioner was constrained to submit a fresh representation on 4.2001. In the meantime, the Chairman vide his letter dated 5.1.2002 intimated the petitioner that there is no vacancy in their Bank and thus the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. On 16.8.2002 the mother of the petitioner made another representation to the Chairman for kind consideration of their claim for compassionate appointment. Finding no response, the petitioner again made representations on 29.11.2003 and 26.2004 bringing to the notice of the authority that he has passed +3 Arts in the meantime and he is willing to accept any post in the Bank. Finding no response from the employer the petitioner is constrained to file the writ petition seeking a direction from this Court against the opposite parties involved herein to provide him appointment as Jr. Clerk or Messenger or any other post in the Bank applying the scheme for compassionate appointment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating his stand taken in the writ petition and taking this Court to the scheme available for the purpose particularly placing reliance of the provisions contained in paragraph</i> nos.3, 5 & 7 contended that the scheme has ample scope for providing compassionate appointment. Referring to the case of the petitioner Shri Mohanty, further submitted that the employer though bound by the provisions under the scheme but it grossly neglected the case of the petitioner. Taking support of the decisions (1) in the case of Canara bank & Anr. versus M. Mahesh Kumar, (2015) AIR(Supreme Court) 2411; (2) in the case of Smt. Phoolwati versus Uniion of India & Ors., (1991) AIR(Supreme Court) 469; (3) in the case of Smt. Sushma Gosain and others versus Union of India and others, (1989) 4 SCC 468; (4) in the case of Mohini Kumar Naik versus Orissa State Electricity Board and others, (1992) 1 OrissaLR 173, Shri Mohanty, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has direct support of the aforesaid rulings and thus, the writ petition should be allowed with a positive direction to the employer for providing a suitable employment to the petitioner in the Bank.