PAPUNI SAHOO Vs. G. M.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this writ application seeking direction to the opposite parties to grant him compassionate appointment, pursuant to application dated 02.07.2015, as per clause 8.1 of the scheme floated vide circular dated 29.09.2014 in Annexure-2, by quashing letter dated 22.09.2015 in Annexure-4 whereby he has been denied such appointment on the ground that the father of the petitioner took voluntary retirement on 27.05.2015 and that he was not an employee of the bank and, therefore, the petitioner is not eligible for the same.

(2.) The conspectus fact of the petitioner's case is that father of the petitioner late Hatakishroe Sahoo rendered his service as 'Daftary' from 01.01.1990 to 27.05.2015 with opposite party no.3, i.e., UCO Bank, Gondia Branch, Dhenkanal. The father of the petitioner suffered from bilateral diabetic foot ulcer and hypertension CKD and as such could not discharge his duty perfectly. He applied for voluntary retirement from service on health ground and on consideration the same was accepted and approved on 27.05.2015. As the petitioner, his mother-Padmini Sahoo and younger brother-Manoj Kumar Sahoo were dependents on the petitioner's father for their daily maintenance and survival, the petitioner submitted his application on 02.07.2015 for compassionate appointment. But, the same was considered and rejected on the ground that the father of the petitioner took voluntary retirement on 27.05.2015 and was not an employee of the bank, therefore the petitioner is not eligible for such compassionate appointment under the scheme. Hence this application.

(3.) Mr. Y.S.P. Babu, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner, being a legal representative of an employee working under opposite parties-UCO Bank, claimed for compassionate appointment as per scheme for compassionate appointment floated vide circular dated 29.09.2014 in Annexure-2. Instead of considering the same in proper perspective, the opposite parties rejected the claim of the petitioner vide letter dated 22.09.2015 on the ground that petitioner's father took voluntary retirement on 27.05.2015 and the petitioner applied for compassionate appointment only on 02.07.2015, when his father was not an employee of the bank, though the letter of rejection itself indicates that the dependant of the permanent employee, dies while in service or retiring on medical grounds due to incapacitation before attaining the age of 55 years, can only apply for compassionate appointment. Since the petitioner's father retired from service due to medical incapacitation before attaining the age of 55 years, the petitioner has a right to apply for grant of compassionate appointment in accordance with voluntary retirement scheme framed by the opposite partiesUCO Bank.