UTTAR BIHAR GRAMIN BANK Vs. CHANDRA MOHAN MISHRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Prabhakar Jha for the appellant, and Mr. Mukesh Kumar No. 3 for respondent no. 1. This appeal has been preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna and raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 4.1.2010, passed in C.W.J.C. No, 17475 of 2009 (Chandra Mohan Mishra V/s. The Union of India & Ors.), whereby the writ petition has been allowed, it has been observed that the circular dated 9.6.2006 will not apply to the present case and the writ petitioner's case for appointment on compassionate ground has to be considered on the basis of the scheme applicable on the date of death of the employee.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for disposal of the appeal may be indicated. The father of the writ petitioner was a sweeper-cum-messenger in the appellant-Bank, who died-in-harness on 14.8.2005. The writ petitioner filed an application with the appellant-Bank for appointment on compassionate ground. The process commenced. However, before a final decision could be taken, the scheme then in force was substituted by the circular dated 9.6.2006, whereby the scheme for appointment on compassionate ground was given up on account of financial implications involved in such an appointment, and instead ex-gratia payment was made admissible. The Bank sought to apply the circular dated 9.6.2006, in the writ petitioner's case leading to the aforesaid writ petition. The learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition with the observation that the circular of 9.6.2006 cannot have retrospective operation. Therefore, the Bank has been directed to consider the writ petitioner's case on the basis of the scheme prevalent on 14.8.2005, the date of death of the father of the writ petitioner. Hence, this appeal at the instance of the Bank.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the policy underlying the circular of 9.6.2006 has to be appreciated. The Government of India had reviewed the entire situation with respect to the appointments on compassionate ground which was causing heavy loss to different public sector undertakings, and they were unable to bear the load of such appointments. While formulating the circular dated 9.6.2006, the Government of India relied on the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Umesh Kumar Nagpal V/s. State of Haryana, 1994 3 JT 525: