PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK Vs. RAM KUMARI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement of the learned Single Judge dated 30.01.2017, by which the writ petition filed by the respondent Ram Kumari Devi has been allowed.

(2.) The respondent approached this Court by filing the writ petition inter alia challenging the order dated 26.6.2004 by which the application seeking compassionate appointment of her sonNarendra Singh has been rejected.

(3.) The facts of the case are that the late husband of the respondent Madan Lal was working as a Clerk with the Punjab National Bank. He was appointed with the said bank in the year 1985. He died while in service on 9.6.2003. The respondent who was wife of the deceased employees submitted an application seeking appointment of her son Narendra Singh on compassionate grounds on 11.7.2003. The appellant rejected his application by order dated 26.6.2004 inter alia on the ground that the respondent having received the terminal dues, the amount of LIC and income from the agriculture land and residing in her own residential house, cannot be said to be in the condition of penury and therefore compassionate appointment cannot be given to her son. The learned Single Judge discussing various judgements has held that compassionate appointment has to be considered by the bank in accordance with the scheme, but the financial status cannot be computed on the basis of retiral benefits received by the family of the deceased employee. Reliance was placed on the judgement of the Supreme Court in Canara Bank and Anr. vs. M. Mahesh Kumar-(2015) 7 SCC 412, wherein it was held that the appellant-bank was not justified in taking the view that the application for compassionate appointment to the respondent cannot be considered in view of the passage of time. The Supreme Court also held that the retiral benefits or terminal benefits have no consequences in consideration of the application for compassionate appointment. The learned Single Judge also noted that as per the own showing of the department, the respondents namely had a loan of Rs.2,69,698/-, which was deducted out of the total amount received by the widow as terminal benefits. As regards the various judgements cited on behalf of the bank, the learned Single Judge observed that the latest judgment of Supreme Court in Canara Bank, supra categorically held that the family of the deceased employee was getting family pension and also obtained the terminal benefits, was of no consequence in considering the application for compassionate appointment.