SANJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE brief facts necessary for adjudication of this petition are that the petitioner's father died in harnesses 20.6.1999. The petitioner's mother forwarded an application to the Branch Manager, Khaira seeking appointment for the petitioner on compassionate basis. The case was forwarded by the Branch Manager, Khaira to the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, State Bank of India, Shimla. The petitioner's mother made a representation to the Deputy General Manager, Zonal Office, State Bank of India also vide Annexure P 1. The reminder was sent by the petitioner's mother on 26.12.2002 seeking compassionate appointment for her son. Shri Jai Chand, deceased has left behind widow, one son and four daughters.

(2.) THE respondents Bank has filed the reply and the gist of the same is that the petitioner is not entitled to compassionate appointment as mother of the petitioner had received a total sum of Rs. 2,80,297/ , (i.e. Rs. 1,73,633/ as provident fund and Rs. 1,06,664/ as gratuity), out of which Rs. 34,000/ was recovered by the Bank as consumer loan availed by the deceased. The respondents in the reply have also averred that the petitioner's mother had deposited a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/ as Special Term Deposit Receipt with the State Bank of India, Khaira Branch and Rs. 1,700/ is the interest accruing to the mother of the petitioner per month. The Bank had further averred that the petitioner's mother is getting pension of Rs. 3,064/ from the Bank and the deceased had 10 marlas of land on which he had built a house worth Rs. 1,50,000/ . Pt. Om Parkash Sharma appearing on behalf of the petitioner had argued that the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment has not been considered in just and fair manner. Mr. Sharma further stated that the letter dated 12.10.2000 is not a speaking order. Mr. Kapil Dev had supported the letter dated 12.10.2000.

(3.) THE petitioner's case for compassionate appointment has been (reacted on 12.10.2000 without a speaking order. The bank had filed the copy of revised Scheme for appointment on compassionate grounds, dated 19th June, 2002, but the case of the petitioner stood rejected on 12.10.2000. The reasons assigned in the reply for not considering the case of the petitioner for compassionate appointment, are not reflected in communication dated 12.10.2000. The petitioner's mother had submitted the application in the year 1999 which was routed through the Branch Manager, Khaira. The representation and the reminders made by the petitioner's mother vide Annexures P 1 and P 2 had not been addressed by the Bank at all. The petitioner's mother had received only a sum of Rs. 2,80,297/ , i.e. Rs. 1,73,633/ as provident fund and Rs. 1,06,664/ gratuity out of which Rs. 34,000/ was recovered by the Bank as consumer loan availed by the deceased/meaning thereby that the petitioner's mother had received only a sum of about Rs. 2.50 lacs. The Bank could not take into consideration the retiral benefits for denying the compassionate appointment to the petitioner. The Bank had also wrongly taken into consideration the amount which the petitioner's mother had deposited towards Special Term Deposit Receipt with the State Bank of India and meagre pension of Rs. 3,064/ while denying the appointment to the petitioner on compassionate basis. The deceased has built a small house worth Rs. 1,50,000/ which also seems to be a guess work. The deceased has left behind a widow, a son and four daughters.