Court No. - 19
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 3900 of 2018 Applicant :- Balwant Chaudhary Opposite Party :- Saloni Narayan And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Ashok Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant and Sri S.K. Kakkar, learned counsel for the opposite party.
By means of this contempt application, applicant has alleged non compliance of the order of this Court dated 7th February, 2018 passed in Writ-A No. 39886 of 2016. The operative portion of the order runs as under:
"In view of the above legal position laid-down in the case of Canara Bank & another (Supra) petitioner is directed to make comprehensive representation annexing therewith details of treatment of his father, expenditure incurred in his treatment , available source of income and assets and liabilities left behind by the deceased father of the petitioner. The respondent-bank shall consider the case of the petitioner afresh in accordance with paragraph-16 of the judgment of Canara bank & another(Supra) within a period of two months from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order before respondent 4 alongwith representation.
With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of."
Today, learned counsel for the opposite party has submitted personal affidavit of opposite party no.
1 before this Court, wherein order of Regional Manager dated 12th September has been annexed, in which he has considered the grievance of the petitioner regarding compassionate appointment and has passed following order:
"5.1 To a dependant family member of permanent employee of the Bank who
1) dies while performing official duty as a result of violence, terrorism, robbery or dacoity or ii) dies within five years of first appointment or before reaching the age of 30 years whichever is later, leaving a dependent spouse and or minor childeren.
I have also examined the comprehensive representation submitted by the petitioner vide which he has claimed that more than Rs. 6-7 lakhs where spent on the illness of his father and his family has no source of income except 65 decimal agriculture land.
In this context, it has been brought to my notice that Medical bills amounting to Rs. 144003/- were claimed from the Bank and Bank reimbursed Rs. 122561/- to the petitioner. Further, Rs. 1139538/- was paid as Provident Fund and Rs. 661815/- was paid as Gratuity. The family pension being received by the widow of deceased as Rs. 21380/- pm. The family is having 1 bigha agriculture land as per revenue records and the annual income from it is Rs. 65000/-. Moreover, the family is having a pucca residential house in the village.
In view of the above, I observe that indigent circumstances do not exist in the family and no material has been produced that the family is not able to manage its affair in natural course or event.
(4) In view of the aforesaid, I have come to conclusion that the Scheme which was operational at the time of death of Shri Udaybhan Chaudhary on 05.04.2015 was the above referred Scheme dated 27.12.2014 effective from 05.08.2014 and the case of the petitioner does not fall within the framework of the Scheme, hence the claim of petitioner for considering him for compassionate appointment is not justified and tenable. In view of the above observations, we do not find any ground for interference. Accordingly, representation is hereby rejected.
A copy of this order be provided to Shri Balwant Chaudhary in compliance to the High Court order dated 07.02.2018.
However, that extant order is being passed without prejudice to the right of the Bank in pending Special Appeal No. 249/2018 before Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad."
Learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute that the specific order has been passed by the competent authority regarding compassionate appointment of the applicant in compliance of the order of the Court. In the opinion of the Court, the order of the writ court has been substantially complied with by considering the grievance of the applicant and in case applicant is still aggrieved against the order passed by the opposite party rejecting the claim of compassionate appointment, it is open for him to avail appropriate remedy for redressal of his grievance against impugned order.
In view of aforesaid, contempt application is disposed. Consigned to records.
Order Date :- 14.9.2018 Sanjeev