VINOD KUMAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE father of the petitioner died on 23. 2. 2001. The claim of the petitioner for appointment on compassionate grounds were rejected by the respondent bank on 20. 5. 2002. The petitioner made representations. The same have also been dismissed by Order dated 30. 9. 2003. While dismissing the claim of the petitioner, the respondents have noticed that after the death of the employee, after paying the debt, a balance amount of Rs. 1,98,000/- was due and payable to him which has been duly paid along with interest. The family is in receipt of family pension of Rs. 2,653/ -. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected by taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Nagpal v. State of Haryana 1994 (3) S. C. T. 174.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner vehemently argues that the amount received by the family of the deceased as terminal benefits should not have been taken into consideration by the respondents. He relies on a Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Balwan Singh v. State of Haryana and Anr. 1998 (4) R. S. J. 691.

(3.) WE have perused the aforesaid judgment. We notice that the judgment rendered by the Supreme Court in Umesh Nagpal's case (supra) was not brought to the notice of the Hon'ble Division Bench. In Umesh Nagpal's case (supra), the Supreme Court considered the factors which should guide the authorities while giving appointment in public services on compassionate grounds. It has been observed that as a rule, appointment in public services should be made strictly on the basis of open invitation of applications and merit. No other mode of appoinment nor any other consideration is permissible. Neither the Governments nor the public authorities are at liberty to follow any other procedure or relax the qualifications laid down by the rules for the post. However, to this general rule, one exception is permitted in favour of the dependents of an employee dying in harness and leaving his family in penury and without any means of livelihood. In such cases, out of pure humanitarian consideration, taking into consideration the fact that unless some source of livelihood is provided, the family would not be able to make both ends meet, a provision is made in the rules to provide gainful employment to one of the dependents of the deceased who may be eligible for such employment. The Supreme Court observed as follows: