STATE BANK OF INDIA Vs. SH. KULDEEP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant-Bank, State of Bank of India, is aggrieved by the judgment dated 17.10.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4482/2004 (Kuldeep Kalla V/s. The State Bank of India & ors.), whereby the learned Judge has directed the appellant-bank to appoint the respondent, Kuldeep Kalla, on compassionate ground.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that Kuldeep Kalla's father, Shri Rajendra Prasad, was working as Senior Assistant in the Army Area Branch of the State Bank of India at Jodhpur. He expired on 13.10.2012 at the age of fifty-four years. On 16.12.2002, the respondent sought appointment in the Bank on compassionate ground. In the application, the respondent claimed that his family consists of his widowed mother, Smt. Asha Kalla, of his two sisters, and himself. Out of the two sisters, while one sister is married, the other sister is still unmarried. The appellant-bank considered the case of the respondent under its scheme. By order dated 30.04.2003, the Bank concluded that the financial condition of the family is not such as to the term the family as penurious. Therefore, it rejected the application filed by the respondent. By letter dated 12.06.2003, the Bank informed the respondent that his case has been rejected. Immediately, the respondent's mother submitted a representation bringing out the precarious condition of the family. However, by letter dated 31.12.2003, the appellant again informed the respondent that his case was considered by the local head office and by the higher authorities of the Bank, yet still they did not find any valid reason for appointing him on compassionate ground. Hence, his mother's representation and his application have been rejected. Subsequently, on 10.08.2004, the respondent sent a legal notice. However, the legal notice was never responded to. Thus, the respondent filed a writ petition before this court. By judgment dated 17 th October, 2006, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the Bank to give appointment to the respondent on compassionate ground. Hence, this appeal before this court.

(3.) During the pendency of the appeal, by order dated 09.02.2007, this Court stayed the effect and operation of the impugned judgment. Subsequently, after hearing both the parties, the said stay order was confirmed by order dated 04.12.2007. Therefore, till date the respondent has not been appointed by the appellant Bank.