RITU RAJ Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent Central Bank of India.

(2.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the letter dated 16.12.2004 and the consequential communication dated 22.4.2005 by which his claim for compassionate appointment has been rejected considering his financial condition as not 'indigent ' in nature.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the petitioner urged that the grant of retiral benefits and claim for compassionate appointment are separate issues which do not have a bearing on each other. The fact that certain retiral benefits or pension may have been paid to the dependents of the deceased employee, cannot defeat the claim for compassionate appointment which will have to be considered on its own merits. He relied upon a judgement of the Supreme Court reported in (2005) 10 SCC 289 (Govind Prakash Verma vs. Life Insurance Corporation of India & Ors). Reliance was next placed on another judgement of the Supreme Court reported in (2006) 7 SCC 350 (Union Bank of India & Others vs. M.T. Latheesh) to submit that under the scheme framed by the All India Banks Association of guidelines for compassionate appointment all the eight factors enumerated were required to be considered and only in the event that the Bank was satisfied on all scores that the candidate was not eligible for compassionate appointment, could the claim be rejected. In the present case, the claim has been rejected only on the ground of grant of family pension and other retiral dues. Other factors enumerated in the scheme framed by the Bank including size of the family have not been taken into consideration, thus vitiating the order.