AJAY KUMAR Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 8.3.2001, passed by a learned Single Judge in C. W.J.C. No. 918 of 2001, rejecting the claim of the Appellant for appointment on compassionate ground.

(2.) TWO writ applications being C.W.J.C. No. 13522 of 2000 and C.W.J.C. No. 918 of 2001 2001 (2) PLJR 219 were filed for appointment on compassionate ground. The former was filed by one Sanjeev Kumar Sinha against the State Bank of India, whereas the latter was filed by Appellant - Ajay Kumar against the Canara Bank. Both the writ applications were heard together and disposed of by a common order dated 8.3.2001 by the learned Single Judge, whereby he allowed the claim of Sanjeev Kumar Sinha C.W.J.C. No. 13522/2000) 2001 (2) PLJR 219, but rejected the claim of the Appellant in C.W.J.C. No. 918/2001 for his appointment oh compassionate ground. The Appellant is aggrieved by the order a rejecting his claim for appointment on compassionate ground.

(3.) THE case of the Respondent -Bank is that it has formulated a scheme of employment on compassionate grounds With a view to help the dependent of the deceased employee, who dies in harness and to overcome the, immediate financial difficulties on account of sudden stoppage of main source of income. The Ministry of finance is the nodal agency for the Respondent -Bank and the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance from time to time are being followed. In the light of the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Finance, Respondent -Bank has issued a circular dated 8.8.1993 governing employment on compassionate ground. Thereafter, again the Ministry of Finance has directed the Respondent -Bank to consider the question of compassionate appointment, keeping in view the observation of the Supreme Court in Umesh Kumar Nagpal and Ors. V/s. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (1994) 4 S.C.C. 138. The father of the Appellant died just 20 days before his due date of retirement. His death before the retirement has not changed the financial position of the family since his family has been given all the eligible terminal benefits and the spouse is also entitled to pension and his other properties were detailed in the order. The competent authority considered the case of the Appellant for compassionate appointment on the basis of the said circular and in the light of the observation made by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case and found that there was no indigent circumstances necessitating employment to the Appellant for the reasons mentioned in the order.